ESSO Petroleum Company, Limited & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors

On an uncontested review of a continuing injunction against Persons Unknown, the court should assess whether the injunction has outlasted the compelling need that justified it, in light of changed circumstances and its practical operation. The review is not ordinarily a rehearing of the original merits, although limited adjustments may be made. There is no presumption that an injunction continues. A real and imminent risk of renewed direct action, together with substantial health, safety and operational risks, justified continuation. The description of Persons Unknown could be extended to cover a differently named campaign where the same organisation, supporters and conduct were involved. A general requirement to obtain permission before commencing contempt proceedings was unnecessary where ordinary procedural safeguards were adequate.

The claimants sought the second annual review of a five-year injunction protecting oil refineries, fuel terminals, logistics hubs and related sites from direct action connected with environmental protest campaigns. The defendants included Persons Unknown and two named individuals who had previously given assurances and remained carved out of the injunction.

The court considered whether subsequent events, including an announcement that one campaign would cease its activities, justified discharge or amendment; whether the description of Persons Unknown should be altered; whether a permission requirement should precede contempt proceedings; and whether the injunction remained effective and necessary.

1. Review and continuation. The review was to determine whether the injunction had outlasted the compelling need for which it was granted, considering changed circumstances and its practical operation. It was not ordinarily necessary to revisit the original merits afresh. The court should be cautious about fundamental changes at a review hearing and there was no legal presumption of continuance. The approaches in Valero v Persons Unknown (2025 review) [2025] EWHC 207 (KB) and Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 were adopted.
2. The evidence showed that the threat of direct action remained real and imminent. The announcement that JSO would cease its activities was not an unequivocal and final renunciation, given the campaign’s subsequent communications, activities and amorphous organisation. The injunction had deterred direct action at the sites, but its removal risked renewed activity. The hazards at the sites, including volatile and highly flammable substances regulated under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015, created substantial risks to protesters, workers, the public and the United Kingdom’s fuel resilience. Continuation was therefore justified.
3. Description of defendants. The existing description, based on conduct, was consistent with the guidance in Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies & Travellers [2024] AC 983. It was amended to include persons connected with “other environmental campaign”, because the evidence indicated that JSO might evolve into a differently named campaign involving substantially the same organisation, supporters and protesters. The amendment remained directed to apparently unlawful conduct.
4. Contempt permission filter. A general requirement to obtain permission before bringing contempt proceedings was refused. The concerns arising from the particular facts in MBR Acres Ltd v Curtin [2025] EWHC 331 and University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 454 were absent. Authorities including AG v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273, Sectorguard plc v Dienne plc [2009] EWHC 2693 (Ch) and PJSC Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov & Ors [2014] EWHC 4370 (Comm) demonstrated that adequate mechanisms already existed to address disproportionate applications.
5. The injunction continued, subject to limited amendments. The named fifth defendant’s undertaking was extended, and the claimants were given liberty to apply to bring the fourth defendant within the injunction if further assurances were not provided.

The judgment concerns a first-instance annual review. The judgment records earlier orders and reviews in the same proceedings, but no appeal is stated.