(1) Valero Energy Ltd v (2) Valero Logistics UK Ltd

Hearing date: 24 January 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 12:00pm on 3 rd February 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

The Claimants are three companies who are part of a large petrochemical group called the Valero Group. They own or have a right to possession of a series of sites in England and Wales which include oil refineries and terminals, defined for the purposes of this litigation as the “8 Sites”.

The Defendants are Persons Unknown connected with Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Youth Climate Swarm (defined as the “4 Organisations”) who (i) trespass or stay on the 8 Sites; (ii) block access to the 8 Sites or otherwise interfere with the access to the sites by the Claimants, their servants, agents, licensees or invitees; and (iii) who have been involved in suspected tortious behaviour or whom the Claimants fear will be involved in tortious behaviour at the 8 Sites and the relevant access roads.

On 26 January 2024, Ritchie J granted the Claimants a final injunction against the Defendants to last 5 years, for the detailed reasons he gave in Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134.

Ritchie J's order, amended under the slip rule on 5 February 2024, made provision for the injunction to be reviewed once a year, no later than the anniversary of the 26 January 2024 order, or as close to that date as was convenient to the court.

By an application notice dated 21 November 2024, the Claimants sought a review hearing. The application was argued by the Claimants' counsel at a hearing before me on 24 January 2025. None of the Defendants attended or were represented at the hearing.

The factual background

Ritchie J set out the factual background in detail in his judgment at [1]–[45].

In summary, between 1 and 7 April 2022 a number of environmental activists undertook direct action at the Kingsbury Terminal (one of the 8 Sites: see Ritchie J's judgment at [4]) and on the adjoining access roads. This led to approximately 48 individuals being arrested by the Warwickshire Police at and around that site. Further protest activity took place at and around the Kingsbury Terminal between 9 and 15 April 2022, leading to around 38 arrests.

This conduct was part of a nationwide campaign. Similar direct action occurred at a number of other oil terminals and refineries as well as associated sites. These actions were combined with statements demonstrating a commitment to disrupt indefinitely the oil industry until the Defendants' demands were met.

As a result, injunctions were granted to a number of other entities involved in the energy industry. Since these injunctions have been granted, the direct action has largely ceased. Instead, environmental activists have turned their attention to other related targets which are not protected by injunctions.

The Claimants brought this claim to avoid the potentially very serious health and safety and environmental consequences of the Defendants' actions, as well as other serious consequences for the public. They relied on witness statements from, among others, David Blackhouse (European regional security manager for Valero International Security), David McLoughlin (a director employed by the Valero Group responsible for directing operations and logistics across all of the 8 Sites) and Emma Pinkerton (one of their solicitors). Ritchie J accepted all the evidence provided by the Claimants: see his judgment at [22], [25]–[44] and [46]–[37].

Service issues

The third witness statement of Jessica Hurle dated 29 February 2024 explained how Ritchie J's order had been served.

In respect of the First and Second Defendants and those named Defendants for whom the Claimants did not have a postal address, the order was served by the Claimants using the alternative methods set out in the order. In respect of those named Defendants for whom the Claimants did have a postal address, the order was served pursuant to the usual methods set out in CPR Part 6.

The First and Second Defendants were deemed served on 15 February 2024. Those named Defendants in respect of whom the Claimants did not have a postal address were deemed served on 9 February 2024. Those named Defendants in respect of whom the Claimants did have a postal address were served between 10 and 14 February 2024.

The sixth witness statement of Anthea Adair dated 15 January 2025 described how the documents relating to the review application (namely the application notice and supporting evidence and the hearing notice, together with a cover letter confirming where various documents could be found) were served.

In respect of the First and Second Defendants and those named Defendants for whom the Claimants did not have a postal address, these documents were served by the Claimants using the alternative methods set out in the order of Master Cook dated 7 June 2023. In respect of those named Defendants for whom the Claimants did have a postal address, they were served pursuant to the usual methods set out in CPR Part 6.

The First and Second Defendants were deemed served on 9 January 2025. Those named Defendants in respect of whom the Claimants did not have a postal address were deemed served on 7 January 2025. Those named Defendants in respect of whom the Claimants did have a postal address were served between 3 and 9 January 2025.

Ritchie J ordered that the hearing bundle for a review hearing must be served not less than 7 days before the review hearing. The order of Master Eastman sealed on 1 December 2023 provided alternative methods for serving the hearing bundles.

The hearing bundle for this review hearing was served and filed on 16 January 2025. There was a question mark over whether it had, in fact, been filed 2 minutes late. Out of an abundance of caution the Claimants filed an application for relief from sanctions dated 22 January 2025. This was supported by the seventh witness statement of Anthea Adair of the same date.

For the reasons given in an ex tempore judgment at the start of the hearing, to the extent that the Claimants required relief from sanctions I granted it. I did so, in summary, because, applying the well-known test in Denton and ors v TH White Ltd and ors [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] WLR 3926 at [40], this was neither a serious nor significant failure; it occurred due to some...