Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited v Persons Unknown

When continuation of an injunction against persons unknown is sought, the court should assess the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, the continuing justification for relief, and the appropriate duration and terms. The assessment requires evidence directed to those questions, informed by the context and rationale of the original order. A continuing real and imminent threat of tortious conduct, coupled with inadequate protection through damages or criminal law, may justify renewal. The court must also consider proportionality and Convention rights. An injunction may remain appropriate where it is clearly drafted, precisely identifies the prohibited categories of persons, and preserves lawful protest and access to the court.

The claimant owned and operated a quarry affected by lawful protests, repeated trespass, obstruction of vehicles and interference with signs, fences and gates. An interim injunction was granted without notice in May 2024, followed by a one-year injunction after an on-notice hearing in June 2024. The defendants, defined categories of persons unknown, did not attend the present renewal hearing, although alternative service had been effected in accordance with a directions order.

The claimant sought continuation of the injunction for a further 12 months. The issues were whether it was fair to proceed in the defendants’ absence and whether the existing order had been effective, whether grounds for discharge or a material change had emerged, whether continuation remained justified, and what duration and terms were appropriate.

1. Proceeding in the defendants’ absence. The claimant had taken all practical steps required to notify the persons unknown. The court was satisfied that they had adequate and timely notice and that it was fair, as a matter of case management, to proceed, applying the principles in Williams v Hinton [2011] EWCA Civ 1123.
2. Renewal assessment. The court adopted the four questions identified in Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 (KB): the effectiveness of the order; grounds for discharge; proper justification for continuance; and the basis and terms of any further order. The court also considered the context and rationale of the original injunction, as emphasised in High Speed 2 (HS2) Limited v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277.
3. The injunction had been highly effective. Unlawful disruption had substantially reduced, but the evidence showed that lawful protests continued and that a real and imminent threat of renewed unlawful trespass and obstruction remained. The original risks to operations, health and safety and the public therefore remained material.
4. Damages were inadequate because the tortfeasors were unknown and the operational losses and safety risks were not sufficiently remediable by damages. The ordinary constraints of criminal law had also proved insufficient.
5. The order struck a proportionate balance by permitting lawful protest, lawful highway and right-of-way use, and access to the court. Its clear language, temporal and geographic limits, and defined categories of persons unknown supported continuation for 12 months. The claimant was additionally required to provide the defendants with a copy of the judgment when available.
6. The application was granted and the injunction renewed until 23.59 on 5 June 2026.