(1) Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others v (1) Persons Unknown Entering or Remaining Without the Consent of the Claimant(s) on Land and Buildings Shown Shaded Red on the Plans Attached to the Amended Claim Form (First Defendant) (2) Persons Unknown Interfering with The First and Second Claimants' Rights to Pass and Repass with or Without Vehicles, Materials and Equipment over Private Access Roads Onland Shown Shaded Orange on the Plans Annexed to the Amended Claim form Without the Consent of the Claimant(S) (Second Defendant) (3) Persons Unknown Interfering with the Right of way Enjoyed by the Claimant(s)/or Its Affiliates and Each of its and their Agents, Servants, Contractors, Sub-Contractors, Group Companies, Licensees, Employees, Partners, Consultants, Family Members and Friends Over
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Mr Justice Morgan |
Judgment Date | 23 November 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch) |
Docket Number | Case No: HC-2017-002125 |
Court | Chancery Division |
Date | 23 November 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Morgan
Case No: HC-2017-002125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Alan Maclean QC, Janet Bignell QC, Jason Pobjoy and Gavin Bennison (instructed by Fieldfisher LLP) for the Claimants
Heather Williams QC, Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh and Jennifer Robinson (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Sixth Defendant
Stephanie Harrison QC, Stephen Simblet and Laura Profumo (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the Seventh Defendant
Hearing dates: 31 October 2017, 1 and 2 November 2017
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Morgan
Mr Justice Morgan:
The applications
There are three applications before the court. The first application was made by the Claimants by application notice dated 31 July 2017. Although that application was expressed to be for final injunctions, the application was presented as an application for interim injunctions intended to last until the trial of this action. The background to that application is that on 28 July 2017, I granted the Claimants interim injunctions in similar terms to the orders which are now sought. Those injunctions were granted on the Claimants' ex parte application. I fixed a return date of 12 September 2017 and on that day I heard argument from counsel for the Claimants and from counsel who had been instructed by Mr Boyd and Mr Corré. Mr Boyd and Mr Corré were then joined as the Sixth and Seventh Defendants. On 12 September 2017, I granted interim injunctions which were intended to last for a short period until a further hearing with a time estimate of three days to enable the court to hear argument on the many points which needed to be considered. That hearing took place on 31 October and 1 and 2 November 2017.
The second application was made by the Sixth Defendant by application notice dated 6 September 2017. By that application, the Sixth Defendant sought the discharge and/or the variation of the ex parte order I had made on 28 July 2017. The third application was made by the Seventh Defendant by application notice dated 6 September 2017. By that application, the Seventh Defendant sought the discharge of the ex parte order I had made on 28 July 2017. The second and third applications were before the court on 12 September 2017 when I continued the ex parte order and the two applications of 6 September 2017 were presented at the three-day hearing as applications to discharge the ex parte order of 28 July 2017 and the further order which I made on 12 September 2017.
The Claimants
There are ten Claimants. The First Claimant is a subsidiary company of the INEOS corporate group, a privately owned global manufacturer of chemicals, speciality chemicals and oil products. The First Claimants commercial activities include shale gas exploration in the UK. It is the lessee of four of the Sites which are the subject of the Claimants' application (Sites 1, 2, 3 and 7). The lessors in relation to these four sites include the Fifth to Tenth Claimants. The Second to Fourth Claimants are companies within the INEOS corporate group. They are the proprietors of Sites 4, 5 and 6 respectively. The Fourth Claimant is the lessee of Site 8 and it has applied to the Land Registry to be registered as the leasehold owner of that site. I will refer to the First to Fourth Claimants as "Ineos" without distinguishing between them. The Fifth to Tenth Claimants are all individuals. The Fifth Claimant is the freeholder of Site 1. The Sixth to Eighth Claimants are the freeholders of Site 2. The Ninth to Tenth Claimants are the freeholders of Site 7. The various sites are described below.
The Sites
There are eight sites which are relevant. Site 1 is described as land and buildings on the south side of Dronfield Road, Eckington, Sheffield. Site 2 is described as land and buildings at Carr Farm, Winney Lane, Harthill, Sheffield. Site 3 is described as land and buildings known as Four Topped Oak, Farnworth Road, Penketh, Warrington. Site 4 is described as land and knowns known as land for a Wellhead Site, Givenhead Farm, Ebberston, Snailton, North Yorkshire. Site 5 is described as land and buildings known as Hawkslease, Chapel Lane, Lyndhurst. Site 6 is described as land and buildings known as 38 Hans Crescent, London SW1. Site 7 is described as land and buildings on the south side of Woodsetts Road, Woodsetts, Rotherham, South Yorkshire. Site 8 is described as land and buildings known as Anchor House, 15–19 Britten Street, London. Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 comprise agricultural land. The buildings on sites 5, 6 and 8 are office buildings.
I was given detailed evidence about the planning applications which have been made in relation to some of these sites. I will give a brief summary of that evidence. On 8 May 2017, Ineos applied for planning permission to drill a vertical core well for shale gas exploration on Site 1. That application has been the subject of a public consultation. The position is similar in relation to Site 2 where the application was made on 30 May 2017. It is expected that the application for Site 2 will be considered by the planning committee on 23 November 2017 and it is thought to be likely that the committee will receive a recommendation for refusal of permission on traffic grounds. Ineos would wish to discuss the traffic issues with the local authority with a view to resolving them.
Sites 3 and 4 are not the subject of a planning application in relation to shale gas exploration. Site 3 is an existing coalbed methane production site with four wells. Site 4 is a site in Scarborough with two wells on it.
As to Site 7, in July 2017, Ineos submitted an Environmental Assessment Screening Report in respect of an intended application for planning permission to drill a vertical core well for shale gas exploration. The local planning authority has since confirmed that it will not require an Environmental Impact Assessment as part of a future planning application for this use. Ineos' evidence stated that it intended to submit such an application at the end of October 2017 but I do not have further information about that matter.
The Defendants
There are seven Defendants or groups of Defendants. The first five groups of Defendants are described as persons unknown with, in each case, further wording which is designed to provide a definition of the persons who fall into the group. The First Defendant is described as:
"Persons unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the Claimant(s) on land and buildings shown shaded red on the plans annexed to the Amended Claim Form".
The Second Defendant is described as:
"Persons unknown interfering with the First and Second claimants' rights to pass and repass with or without vehicles, materials and equipment over private access roads on land shown shaded orange on the plans annexed to the Amended Claim Form without the consent of the Claimant(s)".
The Third Defendant is described as
"Persons unknown interfering with the right of way enjoyed by the Claimant(s) each of its and their agents, servants, contractors, sub-contractors, group companies, licensees, employees, partners, consultants, family members and friends over land shown shaded purple on the plans annexed to the Amended Claim Form".
The Fourth Defendant is described as
"Persons unknown pursuing any course of conduct such as amounts to harassment of the Claimants and/or any third party contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 with the intention set out in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UK Oil & Gas Investments Plc (2) Kimmeridge Oil & Gas Ltd (3) Magellan Petroleum (UK) Ltd (4) Horse Hill Developments Ltd (5) UKOG (GB) Ltd v Persons unknown Who are Protestors against the Exploration and/or Extraction of Mineral Oil or Relative Hydrocarbon or Natural Gas by the Claimant(s) and Who are Involved in the Following Acts or any of them:
...could do so. (3) The Ineos case 48 In November 2017, Morgan J gave judgment in Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others v. Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch) (“ Ineos”). That case concerned applications for interim injunctions against protestors against fracking. Morgan J granted interim injunction......
-
MBR Acres Ltd v Free the MBR Beagles (formerly Stop Animal Cruelty Huntingdon) (an unincorporated association by its representative Mel Broughton on behalf of the members of Free the MBR Beagles who are protesting within the area marked in blue on the Plan attached at Annex 1 of the Claim Form and/or engaging in unlawful activities against the Claimants and/or trespassing on the First Claimant's Land at MBR Acres Ltd, Wyton, Huntingdon PE28 2DT and/or posting on social media images and details of the officers and employees of MBR Acres Ltd, and the officers and employees of third party suppliers and service providers to MBR Acres Ltd)
...“ largely because of the lack of clarity of that term for the purposes of being included in an injunction”: Ineos v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch) [102]. On appeal, Longmore LJ noted the particular difficulties of framing interim injunctions in the context of protests: [39] Those im......
-
Shell UK v Persons Unknown
...have been no need to introduce the word “publication”. 185 He went on to consider the fact that in Ineos Upstream v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945, at first instance, Morgan J held (i) that section 12(3) applied (at [86]) and (ii) the statutory test was satisfied because if the court acce......
-
Shell v Persons Unknown
...important to justify interferences with the defendants' rights of assembly and expression: cf Ineos Upstream v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 per Morgan J at [105] and Cuadrilla per Leggatt LJ at [45] and 58 There is a rational connection between the terms of the injunction and the aim th......
-
Public Rights of Way
...of way for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles. 23 18 [1999] 2 WLR 625. See also Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch), where the court continued quia timet injunctions against protestors against fracking operations. It was said that if a final injunctio......
-
Table of Cases
...Revenue Commissioners v Gray [1994] STC 360, [1994] 38 EG 156, [1994] RVR 129, CA 250, 255 Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch) 526, 566 JA Pye (Oxford) Estates Ltd v West Oxfordshire District Council (1984) 47 P & CR 125, (1982) 264 EG 533, [1982] JPL 577, QBD 281 xxx......