High Speed Two (HS2) Limited & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors

On a review of an interim quia timet injunction against persons unknown, the court must assess whether material circumstances have changed since the order was made. A contra mundum order requires evidence of likely success at trial, a real and imminent risk of serious harm, compelling justification, and proportionality where Convention rights are engaged.

Protection should not continue over land where the evidence no longer establishes a sufficiently evidenced risk of unlawful direct action. The order must instead be confined to the area and conduct for which the continuing risk is proved. The availability of criminal remedies, a material change in the underlying project, and inadequate disclosure may all bear on that assessment.

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited and the Secretary of State sought a further 12-month extension of a routewide interim injunction against named defendants and persons unknown who might trespass on or obstruct HS2 land. The order had previously covered construction land for phases 1 and 2A.

After the Government announced that phase 2A would not proceed, the claimants sought to retain the injunction over that land, amend its plans and add drone-related prohibitions. The sixth defendant opposed the continuation over phase 2A, sought removal from the proceedings, and argued that the claim should be taken to a final hearing.

The central questions were whether the changed circumstances justified continuing the injunction, over what land and conduct, and whether the proceedings should be brought to finality.

1. The application succeeded in part. The interim injunction was extended for 12 months, but only over phase 1 construction land. It was not continued over phase 2A land. The order could also prohibit drone flying likely to interfere with construction work or operations.

2. A review of an interim persons-unknown injunction is not a fresh challenge to the findings that justified the original order. The court must identify the basis of those findings and decide whether a material change requires the need, scope, or terms of the order to be reassessed. The claimant must still establish likely success at trial, a compelling justification, a real and imminent risk of serious harm, inadequate damages, and a necessary and proportionate interference with Convention rights.

3. Those requirements remained satisfied for phase 1. There was a continuing construction project, a history of extensive unlawful activity, and sufficient evidence of future feared tortious conduct. Damages were not an adequate remedy.

4. They were not satisfied for phase 2A. Construction there had been abandoned, removing the protesters’ principal incentive. The evidence of future unlawful direct action on that land was thin and did not establish a real and imminent risk of serious harm. The court also took account of the alternative criminal remedies in the Public Order Act 2023 and the claimants’ four-month delay in informing the court of the announcement.

5. The court permitted 13 named defendants and the sixth defendant to be removed from the claim and injunction, dispensing with formal notices of discontinuance. It declined to direct a final hearing or summary-judgment process. In this mixed named-defendant and persons-unknown claim, the remaining defendants could seek a final determination and the order remained subject to review. The judge expressly did not lay down a general rule on that procedural question.

This was a first-instance review in the same proceedings. The judgment records the following earlier procedural steps.

• Court of Appeal: Coulson LJ refused the sixth defendant permission to appeal Julian Knowles J’s September 2022 routewide interim injunction on 9 December 2022.
• High Court: Julian Knowles J granted the routewide interim injunction in September 2022, declining to make a final injunction at that stage.
• High Court: Ritchie J extended the routewide interim injunction for a further year in May 2023 and gave defendants a means to seek a final trial.