Valero Energy Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

On an annual review of a final injunction against persons unknown associated with environmental protest movements, the court should take the earlier findings and evidence as its starting point. It should then determine whether anything material has changed, including changes in the evidence, risk, law or procedure. If the risk remains and the original procedural and legal requirements continue to be satisfied, the injunction may continue. A reduction in direct action may show that the injunction is effective rather than that the underlying threat has disappeared. The introduction of new public-order offences does not, without evidence of their material effect on future protest, eliminate the risk or require discharge of the injunction.

The claimants owned or possessed eight oil-refinery and terminal sites. In January 2024, Ritchie J granted a five-year final injunction against persons unknown and named defendants connected with Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Youth Climate Swarm. The order required annual review.

The claimants sought an annual review, relying on the earlier evidence and updated evidence. The defendants did not attend or appear. The issues were whether anything material had changed since the original order, whether the continuing threat of trespass and nuisance remained, and whether later legal developments, including the Public Order Act 2023, affected the justification for continuation. The earlier decision is reported at [2024] EWHC 134.

1. Application granted. The court approved the draft order and continued the final injunction for a further year, subject to another annual review.
2. The court adopted the findings and evidence underlying the original order as its starting point. A review hearing is not a hearing de novo. The task is to assess whether material matters have changed and, if they have, whether the scope, detail or need for the injunction should be reconsidered using the original thresholds, as explained in [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) and [2025] EWHC 55 (KB).
3. The updated evidence established a continued threat of trespass and nuisance at the eight sites. The court accepted evidence that the threat level remained unchanged, that no defendant had withdrawn the intention to undertake direct action, and that related environmental action and statements continued.
4. The reduction of direct action at the protected sites did not show that the threat had dissipated. In this context it was evidence that the injunctions had achieved their intended effect, consistent with [2024] EWHC 3130 (KB).
5. The new offences in the Public Order Act 2023 had already been considered when the original injunction was granted. Their evidential effect on deterrence and future protest remained unclear. Their existence alone did not diminish the continuing threat, in line with the authorities cited at [2024] EWHC 2224 (KB), [2024] EWHC 2254 (KB), [2025] EWHC 55 (KB) and [2024] EWHC 3130 (KB).
6. Procedural and legal rigour had been observed and fulfilled. Relief from sanctions was granted for any lateness in filing the review bundle because the failure was neither serious nor significant, arose from technical uploading problems, and caused no prejudice.

This was a first-instance annual review of a final injunction. Ritchie J had granted the five-year injunction on 26 January 2024, reported at [2024] EWHC 134, with provision for annual review. The present court continued the order after finding that nothing material had changed.