Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Extensions Projco Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors

The court may grant a short, territorially limited injunction against identified defendants and “persons unknown”, including genuine newcomers, where a compelling need to protect civil rights is demonstrated and the Wolverhampton safeguards are met. Those safeguards include adequate notice, procedural protection, full and frank disclosure, strict territorial and temporal limits, and a just and convenient outcome. A claimant need not establish a civil cause of action where the injunction is the proportionate means of protecting its rights, including against otherwise lawful activity. In balancing competing lawful rights, the court may weigh public benefit, private benefit, geographical and temporal limits, economic impact and the availability of compensation. The American Cyanamid approach is effectively subsumed within these requirements for named defendants in the same application.

The claimant sought an urgent injunction to keep a defined area of coastal waters free from fishing gear and other obstructions so that seabed surveys for two offshore wind-farm extensions could be completed. The defendants included unidentified persons responsible for existing or future fishing gear, a fishermen’s association and identified fishermen who came forward after notice of the application.

An earlier hearing had been adjourned because of concerns about notice, identification of affected persons and the claimant’s engagement with the local fishing community. Further evidence and notice steps were provided before the present hearing. The central issues were whether an injunction could properly be granted against persons unknown, including newcomers, and whether relief was justified against the named defendants.

1. Injunction against persons unknown. The court was satisfied that the claimant had demonstrated a compelling need for interim relief. The evidence showed a strong case in public nuisance or, alternatively, under the Canada Goose principle. The project’s public importance and the risk that delay would jeopardise critical survey and construction deadlines outweighed the modest, compensable disruption to fishing.
2. The injunction satisfied the Wolverhampton criteria. There was no realistic alternative in the form of a stop notice under Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, because the dispute concerned competing uses of the sea rather than breach of a licence condition. The order was precisely defined, lasted only until the return date, included extensive notice provisions and liberty to apply, and was made after full and frank disclosure.
3. The court could restrain lawful fishing activity where there was no other proportionate means of protecting the claimant’s rights. The relevant balance included the public and private benefits, the small geographical area, the short duration, the economic effect and the availability of compensation. The absence of statutory authority under the development consent order did not materially weaken the claimant’s case.
4. Named defendants. The American Cyanamid criteria were effectively subsumed within the Wolverhampton criteria. The claimant had a strong case, damages were inadequate for it but adequate for the fishermen, and the balance of convenience favoured relief. The heightened approach identified in Lansing Linde was also satisfied because the interim order was likely to provide substantially the relief sought before trial.
5. The injunction was granted in the approved terms until the return date on 1 July 2026, or any adjournment. The fourth, fifth and sixth defendants were joined under rule 19.2. The second defendant was not itself made subject to the injunction because it did not own, operate or control fishing gear.