WM Morrison Supermarkets Limited & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

For an interim injunction restricting protest activity, the court must be satisfied on the evidence that the substantive and procedural requirements are met, including the applicable requirements of Human Rights Act 1998 section 12. The order must be clearly confined to the conduct requiring restraint. Peaceful protest remains unaffected where it does not obstruct entrances, exits, access roads or traffic. The duration of an injunction must be limited to the period reasonably necessary to protect the claimant’s legal rights in light of the evidence. A short adjournment may be appropriate to secure a fair opportunity for affected persons to respond and to permit consideration of updated evidence.

The claimants sought continuation of interim injunctions concerning eight regional distribution centres. The injunction restrained entry, occupation or remaining at the sites in connection with agricultural protests, and prohibited blockades or other obstruction of access roads.

Collins Rice J had granted the injunctions on 16 January 2025 for an initial week. At the return date before Fordham J, the claimants sought continuation for 12 months. An unnamed person associated with Farmers to Action requested further time to consider the extensive documentation and obtain advice. The central issues were whether the interim criteria were satisfied, how the injunction should be framed to protect lawful protest, and what duration was justified.

1. Interim injunction continued. The injunction made by Collins Rice J on 16 January 2025 was continued until variation or discharge. A replacement order was to be sealed the following day, and the return date was adjourned to 28 January 2025.
2. Scope of restraint. The injunction applied only to the defined distribution centres and their access roads. It did not concern supermarkets or supermarket car parks. Lawful protest outside the distribution centres remained permitted where it did not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular entrances or exits. Peaceful protest on public highways forming part of the defined access roads was also unaffected unless it involved blockade, obstruction, or interference with passage.
3. Requirements satisfied. On the evidence and submissions, the court was satisfied that the claimants had taken all practicable steps required by section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The court was also satisfied as to cause of action, likelihood of success at trial, full and frank disclosure, a real and imminent risk of tortious activity and harm, absence of a realistic defence, compelling justification, inadequacy of damages, procedural compliance, and sufficient clarity in the order.
4. Duration and fairness. The court accepted that the duration should be only that proven reasonably necessary to protect the claimants’ legal rights in light of evidence of past and feared future tortious activity. A further week was justified and struck a fair balance, allowing affected persons an opportunity to respond and enabling consideration of updating evidence before deciding whether a longer injunction was warranted.