Valero Energy Limited & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

At a review of a continuing injunction against persons unknown, the court should not start again from first principles. It should understand the findings supporting the original order and investigate whether anything material has changed.

The review should address the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, the justification for continuation, and the basis for any further order. If material circumstances have changed, the court must analyse those changes and reconsider the scope and need for relief, applying the original legal thresholds. If nothing material has changed and the original risk remains, continuation may be ordered, provided procedural and legal rigour have been observed.

The claimants obtained a five-year final injunction in Valero v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB) against persons unknown and named defendants associated with environmental protest movements. The injunction restrained trespass, blockades, obstruction and interference at or near eight petrochemical sites. It was subject to annual review.

At the first review, the injunction was continued by Valero v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB). At the second review, the claimants relied on updated evidence concerning the injunction’s deterrent effect and the continuing risk of protest activity. The defendants did not attend. The central issue was whether anything material had changed so as to justify discharge or alteration of the injunction.

1. Continuation ordered. The Injunction Order remained in force pending a further review within no more than 12 months.
2. The review approach was governed by the guidance in Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies & Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45. The court had to consider how effective the order had been, whether grounds for discharge had emerged, whether there remained proper justification for continuation, and whether a further order should be made.
3. Following HS2 v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB), the review did not begin de novo. The original findings supporting the injunction formed the starting point. The court had to identify the basis of the original risk and determine whether anything material had changed.
4. If material matters had changed, the court would have to analyse them in the light of the earlier decisions and determine anew whether the scope, detail and need for the injunction should be altered. The original thresholds for granting the injunction would nevertheless continue to apply.
5. The approaches in Arla Foods v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952, Transport for London v Persons Unknown and Others [2025] EWHC 55 (KB) and Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 (KB) supported a review focused on developments since the previous order, with material change required where a full determination had already been made.
6. The evidence showed that the injunction had been effective and had deterred protest activity. The March 2025 press release by Just Stop Oil did not eliminate the risk. Later statements and activities indicated continuing or renewed intentions by protest groups, and the evidence showed that risks from other groups also remained.
7. Accordingly, nothing material had changed. The risk which justified the original injunction continued, and the required procedural and legal rigour had been observed and fulfilled.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): A final injunction was granted on 26 January 2024 in Valero v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB).
• High Court (King's Bench Division): The first annual review continued the injunction on 24 January 2025 in Valero v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB).
• High Court (King's Bench Division): At the second review, the injunction was continued pending further review.