Hampshire Waste Services Ltd v Intending Trespassers upon Chineham Incinerator Site
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE VICE-CHANCELLOR |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 08 July 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Rt.hon. The Vice-chancellor
(sir Andrew Morritt)
(As approved by the Judge)
MISS K. HOLLAND (instructed by Messrs. Pinsents, Birmingham) appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
1.
1 This is an application without notice made by the four claimants, each of whom is a member of the Onyx Environmental group of companies and owns and operates one or more of the incinerator stations specified in the claim form. The nature of the problem and the relief the claimants seek is clearly explained in the witness statement of Mr. R.C. Hunt made today. In para.3 of that document he explains:
“Each of the claimants owns and operates waste incinerator sites around the United Kingdom. The first claimant also has two further plants under construction. The operating plants are used to process and dispose of locally generated commercial and domestic waste. Energy produced by the incineration process is sold into the national grid. The claimants between them produce about 80 megawatts of electricity for distribution through the grid which is sufficient for the needs of approximately 84,000 homes. In recent years the claimants have suffered seriously damaging and costly invasions by trespassers who style themselves as environmental protesters. The invasions sometimes occur on a predetermined day following an intense period of Internet and other publicity. Such predetermined days are described by environmental protesters as Global Day of Action Against Incinerators.”
2 Previous global days of action against and/or invasions of incinerator service stations have included the following: in November 2000, a site at Edmonton owned by Sita and London Waste was invaded by some 12 protesters. On 22nd May 2001, protesters entered a site in Sheffield which now belongs to the second claimant. The publicity material surrounding the events that occurred on that day indicate that the persons who invaded the site were claimed by Greenpeace to be its volunteers. The recovery and enforcement costs incurred by the then owner (none of which had been recovered) amounted to £61,000. On 25th February 2002, a site in Lewisham in London owned by the third claimant was invaded by persons identifying themselves as associated with Greenpeace. The invasion caused considerable concern to the third claimant's employees. The legal and enforcement costs alone (none of which has been recovered) came to about £74,350. On 17th June 2002, protesters invaded the plant of the first claimant which was then in the course of construction. Again, Greenpeace claim that persons connected with it had been amongst them. The legal and enforcement costs came to £120,000 and have not been recovered. In July 2002, there was an invasion at a site at Port Talbot operated by an organisation called HLC.
3 In his witness statement, Mr. Hunt explains why any incursion inevitably leads to a shut down of the plant for health and safety reasons with considerable consequential loss and disruption to community facilities. He also describes how the activities of the protesters lead to danger not only to themselves but to others.
4 In para.29 of his witness statement Mr. Hunt describes the Internet and other publications which indicate that next Monday, 14th July 2003, has been designated the next Global Day of Action Against Incinerators. He expresses concern that it is most likely that one or more plants owned and operated by one or more of the claimants will be the target. He points out that the police are largely powerless, the sheriff's officers overstretched and a claimant's remedy of damages entirely inadequate.
5 There can be little doubt that if the plant of one of the claimants is invaded on 14th July that claimant will suffer substantial and irrecoverable damage. But for one matter, the case for an interim injunction to restrain threatened trespass to the property of the claimants and each of them is clearly made out.
6
The matter to which I refer is that the claimants are unable to name any of the protesters who might be involved. Accordingly, in the draft claim form and order, the defendants are named as “Persons intending to trespass and/or trespassing upon incinerator sites at”, and there follow the six addresses, “in connection with the ‘Global Day of Action Against Incinerators’ (or similarly described event) on or around 14 July 2003”.
7 A similar problem arose in the case involving the Harry Potter book which has recently been published. In that case the evidence clearly showed that a person or persons unknown had illicitly obtained copies of the books some weeks in advance of publication and were trying to sell them or parts of them to the media. For the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheffield City Council v Alice Fairhall and Others
...in the city of Sheffield. Such an order is appropriate in accordance with the principle established in Hampshire Waste Services Ltd v Intending Trespassers upon Chineham Incinerator Site [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch). 96 These orders will not take effect immediately in order to give the defendants ......
-
Sun Street Property Ltd v Persons Unknown (Defendants/Applicants)
...clear precedent established in the judgment of Sir Andrew Morritt (then Vice Chancellor) in Hampshire Waste Service v Persons Unknown [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), [2004] Env LR 9, and effectively approved by the Supreme Court in Secretary of State v Meier [2009] UKSC 11 [2009] 1 WLR 2780 per Lor......
-
Mr Thomas Andrew Wensley and 11 Others v Persons Unknown and Others
...with anti-fracking, environmental, or similar protests or events. Mr Roscoe relies upon the case of Hampshire Waste Services Limited v Intending Trespassers upon Chineham Incinerator Site [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), reported at [2004] Environmental Law Reports 9, as authority for the propositio......
-
CMOC Sales & Marketing Ltd v Person Unknown and 30 others
...The thinking behind that was repeated by the Vice Chancellor in a later injunction case, Hampshire Waste Service v Persons Unknown [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), where the court made an order enjoining unknown trespassers from entering incinerator sites belonging to the 182 The novel aspect here i......