Esso v Persons Unknown

Hearing dates: 09/07/2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00am on 11.07.2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Sweeting

Introduction

This is the second annual review of the injunction granted in this matter to Esso Petroleum Company, Limited and ExxonMobil Chemical Limited (“the Claimants”). They seek the continuation of the existing order with some amendments. The First, Second, and Third Defendants are identified as Persons Unknown who are connected with the ‘Extinction Rebellion’ (“XR”) campaign or the ‘Just Stop Oil’ (“JSO”) campaign. The Fourth Defendant (“D4”), Paul Barnes, and the Fifth Defendant (“D5”), Diana Hekt, are named individuals.

Background to the Case

The injunction was originally obtained by the Claimants in 2022 in response to environmental protest campaigns. The injunction protects various sites (“the Sites”), which include an oil refinery, fuel terminals, logistic hubs, and compounds across the United Kingdom. The Sites form a significant element of the national energy infrastructure. The Fawley site, for instance, is the largest oil refinery in the United Kingdom, providing 20% of the nation's refinery capacity.

The history of protest action at these Sites and elsewhere is well-documented in the evidence, including in the statements of Mr. Anthony Milne, Mr. Stuart Sherbrooke Wortley, Mr. Nawaaz Allybokus, and Mr. Martin Pullman. These statements describe the significant problems experienced by the Claimants, not as isolated events, but as part of a wider pattern of “direct action” at oil terminals across the country. The Sites are mainly complex industrial units which process or store substantial amounts of volatile and highly flammable material capable of being released in liquid or vapour form. The sites are secure and subject to stringent safety measures and protocols which would not be apparent to a member of the public. They therefore involve managed risk. The consequences of any of the risks involved eventuating present a clear and significant danger to those who work at or visit the Sites, anyone entering unlawfully or protesting at the Sites and, not least, the local population and environment.

On 19 July 2023, Linden J granted “final” relief, imposing an injunction effective for a period of five years, subject to annual review (“the Linden Order”). Subsequently, on 29 January 2024, Ellenbogen J reviewed the Linden Order, prior to its first annual review, to consider whether any changes were necessary in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Wolverhampton CC v. London Gypsies & Travellers [2024] AC 983 (“ Wolverhampton”). Ellenbogen J concluded that no changes were required, granting similar relief with minor “tidying up” in relation to one area no longer requiring protection and another where previously unregistered land had become registered (“the Ellenbogen Order”). The first annual review hearing took place on 10 July 2024 before Tipples J, who concluded that there had been no material change in circumstances warranting the discharge or amendment of the injunction. She ordered that it continued unchanged. D4 and D5 were, as previously, “carved out” of the injunctions due to assurances they had provided.

Relevant Law

The purpose of a review hearing for an injunction, particularly one against Persons Unknown, was clearly articulated by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton. At [225], the Court observed that a review:

“…will give all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been; whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made.”

As Mr Morshead KC observed, this is an area of evolving jurisprudence so that it is also open to the Court to review the operation of continuing injunctive relief in the light of legal developments. That has already taken place in this case following the decision in Wolverhampton. I am satisfied that the Claimants have drawn to my attention all of the recent relevant case law in relation to the granting of similar injunctive relief.

In cases where the review is uncontested, the primary focus is not to revisit the merits afresh but rather to determine whether the injunction has outlasted the compelling need which led to its initial imposition, in view of any changed circumstances. This approach is consistent with the views expressed by Hill J in Valero v Persons Unknown (2025 review) [2025] EWHC 207 (KB) at [20–30], and by Garnham J in Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 (hereafter “ Rochdale”) at [42–52].

I agree that this is the practical and proportionate way to approach a review ordered as part of the original grant of relief. Such a review is also an opportunity to make necessary adjustments in the light of experience of the practical operation of the injunction and changing circumstances. The Court should nevertheless be wary of embarking upon fundamental changes to the scope or nature of injunctive relief at a review hearing rather than requiring a further and full application to be made. I also bear in mind that there is no legal presumption of continuance.

Continued Threat of Direct Action

The evidence before me, particularly from the fifth and sixth witness statements of Ms Stebbing demonstrates that the threat of direct action at and against the Sites continues to be a real one.

First, there is direct evidence from JSO itself acknowledging the effectiveness of injunctions in deterring their actions. A tweet from 13 September 2023 stated, in relation to protests on highways:

“Disruption is frustrating, but we have no other choice. Fossil fuel companies have taken out private injunctions that makes protests impossible at oil refineries, oil depots and even petrol stations…”

This strongly suggests that the injunctions covering oil refineries have compelled JSO to target other infrastructure and, conversely, that the removal of the injunction would invite renewed activity of the sort that it was designed to prevent.

Secondly, other courts have also recently found there to be a continuing threat in cases similar to the present application (see Valero (above) and Exolum Pipeline Systems Ltd v Persons Unknown — 25 February 2025, Swift J reviewing the order made in that case in 2024 – see Exolum Pipeline System Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1015 (KB)).

Thirdly, specific incidents indicate ongoing interest in the Sites. For example, in December 2023, an individual trespassed on the Fawley Site to film its layout by drone, subsequently publishing the footage online, which has gathered over 146,000 views to date. Whilst some time ago and not overtly a protest, the filming of the site and the high number of continuing views demonstrates a persistent interest in the Claimants' infrastructure. Broader interest in the Claimants' assets across England by environmental activists is also described in Ms Stebbing's evidence.

Fourthly, XR and JSO continue to focus their attention on the oil and gas sector. Recent examples include multiple environmental activist groups, including JSO, targeting airports in Europe in July-August 2024, with JSO stating that “areas of key importance to the fossil fuel economy will be declared sites of civil resistance around the world”. In October 2024, XR activists blockaded the United Kingdom Oil & Gas plc production site in Surrey, and in January 2025, XR occupied the Manchester office of an insurance broker, because it was involved, it was said, in insuring fossil fuel projects. Direct action by other related groups, such as Shut the System and Youth Demand, also occurred in 2025.

Fifthly, whilst JSO issued a press release on 27 March 2025 stating it would be “hanging up the hi vis” at the end of April 2025, the evidence in Ms Stebbing's sixth witness statement casts significant doubt on the finality of this change in approach. The press release itself contained a “Note to Editors” that is hard to reconcile with an unequivocal renunciation of direct action. More significantly, undercover reporting on 16 May 2025 referred to an alleged recording of JSO indicating it had not disbanded, prompting JSO to email its mailing list on 21 May 2025 stating: “GB News was right for once. We are “plotting a very big comeback””. The email further suggested that this renewed campaign might operate under a new...