Shell UK Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors

Final injunctions against persons unknown and named environmental protesters may be granted where the claimant proves a strong probability of future tortious interference causing real harm and a real and imminent risk of recurrence. These matters inform, but do not constitute, an inflexible threshold test. The court must exercise the broad discretion under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37, holistically and proportionately.

Unincorporated Aarhus Convention provisions cannot create a freestanding domestic right, but may inform the interpretation of ECHR rights and the section 37 discretion. They do not authorise deliberate criminality or unlawful interference with others’ rights. Injunctions should be clear, geographically and temporally limited, properly served, reviewable, and expressly preserve lawful protest.

Shell companies sought final five-year injunctions against persons unknown and named protesters following direct action at an oil refinery, an office tower and petrol stations. The pleaded causes of action were trespass and private nuisance, public nuisance, and conspiracy to injure by unlawful means.

Two named defendants appeared in person. They relied on Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR, proportionality, the Public Order Act 2023, and Article 3(8) of the Aarhus Convention. The court also considered the continuing relevance of earlier interim injunction judgments and the requirements governing protest injunctions against persons unknown.

The central issues were whether final injunctions were necessary and proportionate, whether the criminal law made civil relief unnecessary, and what legal relevance an unincorporated environmental treaty had in the exercise of the court’s discretion.

1. Disposition. Final injunctions were granted in all three claims for five years. Alternative service orders were granted, and the application to remove the third defendant in Claim 3 was granted. Claim 3 did not seek costs against the defendants.
2. Statutory discretion and evidential approach. Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 confirms the High Court’s equitable power to grant an injunction where it is just and convenient. The court adopted the approach in Wolverhampton: there must be compelling justification, a strong probability of a tort or other unlawful breach, real harm, and a real and imminent threat. These considerations are assessed holistically rather than as rigid threshold tests.
3. Fifteen-factor checklist. The court treated the requirements identified in Valero, drawing on Canada Goose and Wolverhampton, as a structured checklist. The claims, evidence, absence or lack of realistic defences, compelling need, proportionality, inadequacy of damages, identification and service of defendants, clarity and correspondence of the injunction terms, geographical and temporal limits, rights to vary or set aside, and periodic review were all satisfied.
4. Convention rights. The injunctions pursued the legitimate aim of protecting Shell’s lawful civil rights. They were rationally connected to that aim, the least intrusive effective measure, and struck a fair balance under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. ECHR rights did not confer a right to trespass on private land. The court also rejected the argument that the Public Order Act 2023 made civil relief unnecessary: criminal proceedings punish past conduct, whereas an injunction prevents future harm.
5. Aarhus Convention. The unincorporated Convention was not directly enforceable and could not be incorporated through the common law. Nevertheless, it was relevant to interpreting ECHR rights and to the section 37 discretion. Article 3(8) did not protect deliberate criminal damage or unlawful interference with the rights of others. Because the injunctions prohibited only specified unlawful conduct and preserved lawful protest, granting them was neither contrary to Aarhus nor disproportionate.
6. Final safeguards. The orders were sufficiently clear and precise, corresponded to the threatened torts, contained defined geographical and temporal limits, provided for alternative service, liberty to apply, and annual review. Lawful protest remained outside their scope.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier interim and review decisions in the same litigation, including [2022] EWHC 1215 (QB), [2023] EWHC 1229 (KB) and [2024] EWHC 1546 (KB), but this was a fresh determination of the applications for final relief.