North Warwickshire Borough Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

An annual review of an injunction, particularly one against persons unknown, must assess whether its continuation remains justified. The court should consider the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, the justification for continuation, and whether a further order should be made. The review does not reopen the original merits. It focuses on material factual or legal changes since the order was made and, where such changes arise, whether the order’s scope or continuing necessity should be reconsidered. A period without protest activity does not by itself establish that the threat has dissipated; it may instead show that the injunction has had a deterrent effect.

North Warwickshire Borough Council obtained an injunction and power of arrest restricting protest activity at and near Kingsbury Oil Terminal. Following the trial, the injunction was reviewed in North Warwickshire Borough Council v Barber & Others [2024] EWHC 2254 (KB). It was continued at the first annual review in North Warwickshire Borough Council v Barber & Others [2025] EWHC 2403 (KB).

The Council sought continuation at the second annual review. The defendants included named individuals connected with protest activity and persons unknown who might protest at or near the terminal. None attended or was represented. The court considered the effect of the injunction, evidence of current protest activity and risk, whether anything material had changed, and whether the defendants had received adequate notice and an opportunity to participate.

1. The court granted the Council relief from sanctions for late compliance with four requirements of the first review order. It also considered whether the defendants had adequate notice of the second review. Although service of the first review order on named defendants was unsatisfactorily late, the hearing was adjourned and the defendants were served with the adjournment order, which gave notice of the new hearing and an opportunity to participate. The adjournment remedied any prejudice from the earlier delay.

2. The review was not a rehearing of the original merits. Applying the guidance in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2023] UKSC 47, and the approach summarised in Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 (KB), the court considered the injunction’s effectiveness, whether grounds for discharge had emerged, whether continuation remained justified, and whether a further order ought to be made. The focus was on material factual or legal change since the injunction was granted.

3. The absence of protests or breaches did not establish that the threat had dissipated. Applying Valero v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB), the court treated the cessation as evidence that the injunction had deterred activity. Other evidence pointed to renewed direct action: Just Stop Oil had staged a protest in Parliament Square and its website encouraged further resistance. The terminal remained a prominent target, and interference with it carried serious risks of fire or explosion affecting life, property, livelihoods and the environment. The court considered the threat greater than at the first review.

4. No material change in the evidence or law warranted amendment or discharge. The injunction and power of arrest were continued unamended. No further annual review was required because they expire at 4 pm on 6 September 2027. Any application to extend them must be made formally; the order’s liberty to apply remains available to persons served with or affected by it.

1. Trial and injunction: The injunction was granted following trial in North Warwickshire Borough Council v Barber & Others [2024] EWHC 2254 (KB) .

2. First annual review: The injunction and power of arrest were continued in North Warwickshire Borough Council v Barber & Others [2025] EWHC 2403 (KB) .

3. Second annual review: The present court continued both orders unamended.