Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeleine Adams & Ors

A continuation of a newcomer injunction requires the court to review the updated evidence, while retaining the findings supporting the existing order. The claimant must show a compelling need, a civil cause of action, sufficiently strong prospects of success, and an imminent and real risk of harm.

Where protest activity engages Articles 10 and 11, proportionality must be assessed by reference to the threatened future conduct and the restrictions imposed by the injunction. Lawful protest remains permissible, but protest which involves trespass, public nuisance or unreasonable obstruction of the highway may be restrained where the injunction is geographically clear, time-limited and subject to review.

Thurrock Council and Essex County Council sought continuation of an injunction against named and unnamed persons associated with protest activity targeting fuel terminals, highways and related infrastructure. Earlier injunctions had been granted and continued during 2022–2024.

The application concerned apprehended renewed protest activity. The claimants relied on statutory standing under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Highways Act 1980. The central issues were whether there was a sufficient risk of future tortious harm, whether the newcomer-injunction requirements were met, and whether the proposed restrictions were proportionate to the protesters’ Convention rights.

1. The continuation injunction was granted. A review application is not conducted de novo. The court must understand the earlier findings and determine whether anything material has changed. If the risk remains, continuation may be granted; if circumstances have materially changed, the court must reconsider the scope and need for the order.

2. The claimants had standing under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and section 130(5) of the Highways Act 1980. The pleaded causes of action were trespass and public nuisance.

3. Precautionary relief required an imminent and real risk of harm. In this context, imminent meant not premature. The evidence of previous protests, renewed protest plans and the connection between the targeted aviation industry and local fuel terminals established more than a real risk.

4. Trespass to land is committed by interference with possession or the right to possession without legal justification. A person permitted to be on a highway may become a trespasser by exceeding that permission through tunnelling or similar conduct. Articles 10 and 11 did not ordinarily justify trespass.

5. Public nuisance may arise from unreasonable obstruction of the highway. The highway permits peaceful assembly and other reasonable activities, but those activities remain subsidiary to passage and repassage. Deliberate interference with that primary use may constitute an unreasonable obstruction. The obstruction will generally need to be more than de minimis and wilful.

6. For unnamed future protesters, proportionality was assessed by reference to the restrictions in the proposed order rather than the circumstances of presently unidentified individuals. The aim of protecting fuel supplies, public safety, the economy and public resources was sufficiently important; the prohibitions were rationally connected to that aim; damages and criminal proceedings were inadequate alternatives; and the order struck a fair balance.

7. The order was sufficiently clear, matched the pleaded claims, had defined geographical boundaries, was time-limited and contained provisions for service, setting aside, variation and review. It prohibited unlawful protest activity, while leaving lawful protest unaffected.

This was a first-instance continuation application. Earlier injunctions had been granted by Ritchie J in April 2022, continued by His Honour Judge Simon in May 2022, and subsequently continued by Foster J and other orders pending the present hearing.