North Warwickshire Borough Council v The Defendants Listed at Schedule A to this Judgment

At an annual review of an injunction against protest activity, the court must consider whether anything material has changed since the order was granted. The review does not reopen the original merits. A continuing absence of protest may reflect the injunction’s deterrent effect and does not, without more, establish that the risk has abated. The court must reconsider the factual risk, developments in the law, the scope of the injunction and the continuing need for any power of arrest. In cases involving persons unknown, detailed conduct-based categories and active publication of the order remain important. A permission requirement before contempt proceedings is fact-sensitive and may be inappropriate where a power of arrest already provides an immediate route to court.

This was the first annual review of a final injunction obtained by North Warwickshire Borough Council against named individuals and persons unknown connected with protest activity at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The injunction prohibited protests within the Terminal and restricted specified conduct in its locality. A power of arrest was attached under section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006.

The defendants did not attend or make representations. The Council relied on updated evidence concerning continuing protest activity, the Terminal’s operations and the risks of direct action. The court also considered possible legal developments arising from MBR Acres Ltd & others v Curtin [2025] EWHC 331 (KB). The central issues were whether material factual or legal changes justified discharge or amendment of the injunction or power of arrest, and whether the service provisions, descriptions of persons unknown or contempt procedure required alteration.

1. Outcome. The injunction and power of arrest were continued without amendment. A further review was directed in 12 months.
2. Review approach. The review was not a rehearing of the original claim. Its proper focus was whether anything material had changed since the injunction was granted, including factual developments and changes in the law. The court applied the guidance in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2023] UKSC 47, including the need to consider the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, the justification for continuation and whether a further order was appropriate.
3. Continuing factual risk. The absence of further protests did not itself show that the risk had abated. It was more likely that the injunction and power of arrest had deterred further activity. The evidence of continuing activity by Just Stop Oil and other environmental groups, together with the Terminal’s continuing operation and the grave consequences of fire or explosion, established a continuing real and imminent risk.
4. Persons unknown and service. The court retained the detailed conduct-based descriptions of the persons unknown defendants. Although MBR Acres Ltd & others v Curtin [2025] EWHC 331 (KB) suggested that detailed definition might no longer be necessary, the court followed the Supreme Court’s guidance in Wolverhampton that conduct-based identification should be explored and adopted where possible. The alternative service provisions remained consistent with the obligation actively to draw the order to the attention of actual and potential respondents.
5. Permission for contempt proceedings. The court declined to add a permission requirement. Such a requirement was a fact-specific case-management decision. There was no evidence of misuse of the contempt process, and the existence of a power of arrest materially distinguished the case from the circumstances considered in Curtin, University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 724 and Esso Petroleum Company v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1768 (KB). Requiring permission would undermine the utility of the power of arrest.
6. The court approved service notwithstanding the Council’s failure to place separate copies of the injunction and power of arrest at the Terminal entrances, because the A1 signs achieved the essential purpose of publicising the order. It nevertheless emphasised that parties benefiting from alternative service provisions must comply with every directed step or apply formally for variation.

The judgment records the original claim, the final injunction granted on 6 September 2024 and this first annual review. No appeal is stated.