High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Four Categories of Persons Unknown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Julian Knowles |
| Judgment Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2022-BHM-000044 |
| Court | High Court |
| Year | 2022 |
and
[2022] EWHC 2360 (KB)
Mr Justice Julian Knowles
Case No: QB-2022-BHM-000044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KINGS'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
Birmingham Civil Justice Centre
33 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6DS
Richard Kimblin KC, Michael Fry, Sioned Davies and Jonathan Welch (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP) for the Claimants
Tim Moloney KC and Owen Greenhall (instructed by Robert Lizar Solicitors) for the Sixth Named Defendant (James Knaggs)
A number of Defendants appeared in person and/or filed written submissions
Hearing dates: 26–27 May 2022
APPROVED JUDGMENT
Introduction
If and when it is completed HS2 will be a high speed railway line between London and the North of England, via the Midlands. Parts of it are already under construction. The First Claimant in this case, High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, is the company responsible for constructing HS2. It is funded by grant-in-aid from the Government (ie, sums of money provided to it by the Government in support of its objectives).
To avoid confusion, in this judgment I will refer to the railway line itself as HS2, and separately to the First Claimant as the company carrying out its construction. The Second Claimant is responsible for the successful delivery of the HS2 Scheme.
This is an application by the Claimants, by way of Claim Form and Application Notice dated 25 March 2022, for injunctive relief to restrain what they say are unlawful protests against the building of HS2 which have hindered its construction. They say those protesting have committed trespass and nuisance.
There is a dedicated website in relation to this application where the relevant files can be accessed: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-route-wide-injunction-proceedings. I will refer to this as ‘the Website’.
Specifically, the Claimants seek: (a) an injunction, including an anticipatory injunction, to protect HS2 from unlawful and disruptive protests; (b) an order for alternative service; and (c) the discharge of previous injunctions (as set out in the Amended Particulars of Claim (APOC) at [7]). The latter two matters are contained in the Amended Draft Injunction Order of 6 May 2022 at Bundle B, B049.
There are four categories of unnamed defendant (see Appendix 1 to this judgment). There are also a large number of named defendants.
The Claimants have made clear that any Defendant who enters into suitable undertakings will be removed from the scope of the injunction (if granted). The named Defendants to whom this application relates has been in a state of flux. The Claimants must, upon receipt of this judgment, in the event I grant an injunction, produce a clear list of those Defendants (to be contained in a Schedule to it) to whom it, and those to whom it does not apply (whether because they have entered into undertakings, or for any other reason).
The Application Notice seeks an interim injunction ('… Interim injunctive relief against the Defendants at Cash's Pit, and the HS2 Land …). However, Mr Kimblin KC, as I understood him, said that what he was seeking was a final injunction.
I note the discussion in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2022] 2 WLR 946, [89], that there may be little difference between the two sorts of injunction in the unknown protester context. However, in this case there are named Defendants. Some of them may wish to dispute the case against them. Mr Moloney on behalf of D6 (who has filed a Defence) objected to a final injunction. I cannot, in these circumstances, grant a final injunction. There may have to be a trial. Any injunction that I grant must therefore be an interim injunction. The Claimant's draft injunction provides for a long-stop date of 31 May 2023 and also provides for annual reviews in May.
The papers in this case are extremely voluminous and run to many thousands of pages. D36, Mark Keir, alone filed circa 3000 pages of evidence. There are a number of witness statements and exhibits on behalf of the Claimants. The Claimants provided me with an Administrative Note shortly before the hearing. I also had two Skeleton Arguments from the Claimants (one on legal principles, and one on the merits of their application); and a Skeleton Argument from Mr Moloney KC and Mr Greenhall on behalf of D6, James Knaggs. There were then post-hearing written submissions from the Claimants and on behalf of Mr Knaggs. There are also written submissions from a large number of defendants and also others. These are summarised in Appendix 2 to this judgment. A considerable bundle of authorities was filed. All of this has taken time to consider.
The suggested application on behalf of D6 to cross-examine two of the Claimants' witnesses was not, in the end, pursued. I grant any necessary permission to rely on documents and evidence, even if served out of time.
The land over which the injunction is sought is very extensive. In effect, the Claimants seek an injunction over the whole of the proposed HS2 route, and other land which I will describe later. I will refer to the land collectively as the HS2 Land. The injunction would prevent the defendants from: entering or remaining upon HS2 Land; obstructing or otherwise interfering with vehicles accessing it or leaving it; interfering with any fence or gate at its perimeter.
The Application Notice also related to a discrete parcel of land known as Cash's Pit, in Staffordshire. Cotter J granted a possession order and an injunction in respect of that land on 11 April 2022, on the Claimants' application, and adjourned off the other application, which is now before me.
Democracy and opposition to HS2
It must be understood at the outset that I am not concerned with the rights or wrongs of HS2. I am not holding a public inquiry. It is obviously a project about which people hold sincere views. It is not for me to agree or disagree with these. But I should make clear that I am not being ‘weaponised’ against protest, as at least one person said at the hearing. My task is solely to decide whether the Claimants are properly entitled to the injunction they seek, in accordance with the law, the evidence, and the submissions which were made to me.
It should also be understood that the injunction that is sought will not prohibit lawful protest. That is made clear in the recitals in the draft injunction:
“UPON the Claimants' application by an Application Notice dated 25 March 2022
…
AND UPON the Claimants confirming that this Order is not intended to prohibit lawful protest which does not involve trespass upon the HS2 Land and does not block, slow down, obstruct or otherwise interfere with the Claimants' access to or egress from the HS2 Land.”
HS2 is the culmination of a democratic process. In other words, it is being built under specific powers granted by Parliament. As would be expected in relation to such a major national infrastructure project, the scheme was preceded by extensive consultation, and it then received detailed consideration in Parliament. As early as 2009, the Government published a paper, ‘Britain's Transport Infrastructure: High Speed Two’. The process which followed thereafter is described in the first witness statement of Julie Dilcock (Dilcock 1), [11] et seq. She is the First Claimant's Litigation Counsel (Land and Property). She has made four witness statements (Dilcock 1, 2, 3 and 4.)
The HS2 Bills which Parliament passed into law were hybrid Bills. These are proposed laws which affect the public in general, but particularly affect certain groups of people. Hybrid Bills go through a longer Parliamentary process than purely Public Bills (ie, in simple terms, Bills which affect all of the public equally). Those particularly affected by hybrid Bills may submit petitions to Parliament, and may state their case before a Parliamentary Select Committee as part of the legislative process.
HS2 is in two parts: Phase 1, from London to the West Midlands, and Phase 2a, from the West Midlands – Crewe.
Parliament voted to proceed with HS2 via, in particular, the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017 (the Phase One Act) and the High Speed Rail (West Midlands — Crewe) Act 2021 (the Phase 2a Act) (together, the HS2 Acts). There is also a lot of subordinate legislation.
Many petitions were submitted in relation to HS2 during the legislative process. For example, in Secretary of State for Transport and High Speed Two (HS2) Limited v Persons Unknown (Harvil Road) [2019] EWHC 1437 (Ch), [16]–[18], the evidence filed on behalf of the Claimants in relation to the Phase One Act was that:
“… the Bill which became the Act was a hybrid Bill and, as such, subject to a petitioning process following its deposit with Parliament. In total [the Claimants' witness] says 3,408 petitions were lodged against the Bill and its additional provisions, 2,586 in the Commons and 822 in the Lords and select committees were established in each House to consider these petitions.
17. She says the government was able to satisfy a significant number of petitioners without the need for a hearing before the committees. In some cases in the Commons this involved making changes to the project to reduce impacts or enhance local mitigation measures and many of these were included in one of the additional provisions to the Bill deposited during the Commons select committee stage.
18. Of the 822 petitions submitted to the House of Lords select committee, the locus of 278 petitions was successfully challenged. Of the remaining 544 petitions, the select committee heard 314 petitions in formal session with the remainder withdrawing, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transport for London v Persons Unknown
...of protests on the highway, are set out by Bennathan J in NHL v IB at §§28 to 31. See also High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB) (“ HS2”) at §§74, 77–79, 33 Trespass to land is the commission of an intentional act which results in the immediate and direct entry o......
-
The National Highways Ltd v Persons Unknown
...the similar test found within American Cyanamid”. Mr Justice Knowles stated in HS2 Limited v Persons Unknown and Named Defendants [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB); “99. Where the relief sought is a precautionary injunction (formerly called a quia timet injunction, however Latin is no longer to be use......
-
Transport for London v Persons Unknown
...decision at [37] – [39]). However, as Julian Knowles J pointed out in High Speed Two Ltd & another v Persons Unknown & others [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB) at [95] – [96], as a matter of common sense rather than law the court may be more readily satisfied that there is sufficient probability that ......
-
Three Counties Agricultural Society v Persons Unknown and Others
...Mr Grant relied heavily on the decision of Julian Knowles J in Secretary of State for Transport v Four Categories of Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB) (hereinafter referred to as “HS2”), a decision of 20 September 2022. As that decision took into account, and analysed, all the relevant......