Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors

On reviewing a final injunction, the court must consider whether grounds for discharge have emerged and whether continued relief remains properly justified. Where the court has previously determined the risk and balance of interests, a material change of circumstances is generally required before discharging the injunction. An apparent change may justify an interim continuation where the evidence is insufficient to establish that the relevant risk has fully abated. The court may therefore retain the injunction for a limited period and direct an earlier review, taking account of the duration and quality of the new evidence, subsequent conduct, seasonal patterns, the parties’ positions and the availability of an application for earlier discharge.

Transport for London sought continued final injunctions restraining road-blocking protests on specified GLA Roads under the Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil banners. The injunctions had been granted in 2023 for up to five years, subject to annual review, and had been continued after the first review.

Before the second review, Just Stop Oil announced that it would cease disruptive protests of the kind covered by the injunction. TfL nevertheless relied on evidence suggesting that civil resistance might continue and that associated groups or supporters might resume similar activity. The central issue was whether the injunctions should then be discharged, continued until the next annual review, or retained for a shorter period pending further evidence.

1. Review principles. The court had to consider whether grounds for discharge had emerged and whether there remained proper justification for continuation. Because the risk and balance of interests had previously been determined, a material change of circumstances was required before a different conclusion could properly be reached: see Valero Energy Limited v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB).
2. Just Stop Oil injunction. The 27 March 2025 statement and the absence of further road protests since May 2024 constituted a material change and created substantial grounds for immediate discharge. However, six weeks was too short a period to establish that the risk of future road-blocking protests had fully abated. The statement itself contemplated continuing civil resistance, other evidence suggested ongoing or future protest activity, and past activity had concentrated in the summer months. The injunction was therefore continued for no more than six months, with an earlier review in November 2025.
3. Insulate Britain injunction. Although Insulate Britain had ceased to operate as a distinct banner for some time, it had not disavowed its demands or methods and had not made an equivalent statement to Just Stop Oil. The court therefore continued the Insulate Britain injunction on the same interim basis.
4. The injunctions were to remain in force pending the earlier review, subject to liberty to apply. The separate costs issue was resolved by agreement, and the costs order in the Insulate Britain proceedings was amended under the slip rule.