Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited v Kylie Davies & Ors

For committal for contempt of an injunction, the claimant must prove proper service, that the defendant was bound by the order, that its terms were clear and unambiguous, and that the prohibited acts were committed deliberately or intentionally. Proof of actual knowledge is not an additional element of breach where the required procedure and service have been established. Absence of actual knowledge may nevertheless materially affect sanction. Where an injunction against persons unknown is later relied on against an individual known to the claimant, the claimant may need to name and serve that person in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The question whether known protesters fell within the defined class was left open.

The claimant sought committal orders against three protesters alleged to have blocked access to a quarry and trespassed in breach of injunctions made in 2024 and 2025 against persons unknown. The defendants disputed service, knowledge, whether they were within the defined class of persons unknown, and whether breaches had occurred. One defendant admitted the acts after the service and knowledge issues were determined; the other two denied liability. The court found service and knowledge in relation to particular orders and protest dates, but identified an unresolved issue whether two defendants, whom the claimant knew by the relevant time but had not joined as named defendants, were bound by the injunctions.

1. Requirements for contempt. Subject to proper procedure, the claimant must prove to the criminal standard that the order and committal materials were served, that the defendant was properly a defendant to the claim, that the order was clear and unambiguous, that the prohibited acts occurred, and that they were performed deliberately or intentionally.
2. Knowledge. Actual knowledge of the order and its prohibitions is not a separate requirement for proving breach. The authorities, including Cuciurean v SOS for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ. 357, were treated as establishing that service is sufficient. Lack of actual knowledge remains relevant to sanction. The judge found that all three defendants in any event knew of the relevant orders and prohibitions.
3. Persons unknown. An injunction against persons unknown may properly be served on persons who were unknown to the claimant when the order was made. The issue is potentially different where the claimant knew the individual’s identity, deliberately did not join that person, and later relied on alternative service directed at persons unknown. That issue was left open for further submissions concerning DJJ and DV and the court’s power to alter decisions announced in open court.
4. Applications. KD’s breach of the 2025 Order on 18 June 2025 was admitted and found proved. DJJ’s intentional breaches of the 2024 Order on 27 May 2025 and the 2025 Order on 18 June 2025 were found proved factually, but final liability for the latter remained subject to the persons-unknown issue. DV’s intentional acts were found, but final liability for both dates remained unresolved because it depended on whether he was bound by the Orders.
5. The hearing was adjourned for further submissions on issue 4, the power to revise announced decisions, mitigation, sanctions, and the allegedly misleading eviction notice KD1.