National Highways Ltd v Persons unknown Causing the Blocking of, Endangering, or Preventing the Free Flow of Traffic on the M25 Motorway, A2, A20 and A2070 Trunk Roads and M2 and M20 Motorway, A1(M), A3, A12, A13, A21, A23, A30, A414 and A3113 Trunk Roads and the M1, M3, M4, M4 Spur, M11, M26, M23 and M40 Motorways for the Purpose of Protesting
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bennathan |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-003576, QB-2021-003626, QB-2021-003737 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 1105 (QB)
Mr Justice Bennathan
Case No: QB-2021-003576, QB-2021-003626, QB-2021-003737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Myriam Stacey QC, Admas Habteslasie and Michael Fry (instructed by DLA Piper LLP UK) for the Claimant
Owen Greenhall (Intervening) (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen)
Hearing dates: 4 th and 5 th May 2022
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 Claimant, National Highways Limited [“ NHL”], seeks summary judgment and various remedies in 3 sets of proceedings brought in relation to protests carried out on the Strategic Road Network [“ SRN”] under the banner of Insulate Britain [“ IB”]. The Claimant was represented by Myriam Stacey QC, Admas Habteslasie and Michael Fry, of Counsel. I express my gratitude for all the assistance I have received from all the lawyers in the case.
IB is a protest group made up of people whose aims include two demands. First, that the Government undertakes to insulate all social housing in the UK by 2025, and second to do the same for all other housing by 2030. The twin aims behind those demands, as described by IB, are to save the planet from disastrous climate change and to soften the blow of rising fuel prices. The means employed by IB have included protests blocking roads, and protest designed to disrupt other parts of civil society such as various magistrates courts. I should stress that these are all peaceful protests. None of the named Defendants were represented but Ben Horton, who had been a named Defendant, attended at Court and made some submissions about costs. I also made an order under CPR 40.9 and thereafter heard argument from Owen Greenhall of Counsel, who appeared to make submissions on behalf of a person who took an interest in the litigation.
There have been 3 interim injunctions granted in 3 sets of proceedings:
(1) On 21 September 2021 Lavender J granted an order banning protests on M25, and a claim form for an action in trespass and nuisance was lodged on 22 September.
(2) On 24 September 2021 Cavanagh J granted an order banning protests on parts of the SRN in Kent, and a claim form for an action in trespass and nuisance was lodged on the same day.
(3) On 2 October 2021 Holgate J granted an order banning protests on certain M25 feeder roads, and a claim form for an action in trespass and nuisance was lodged on 4 October.
A number of contempt of court applications for breaches of the terms of those injunctions led to protestors being imprisoned and subject to lesser sanctions, in the decisions in NHL v Heyatawin and others [2021] EWHC 3078 (QB), NHL v Buse and others [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB), and NHL v Springorum and others [2022] EWHC 205 (QB).
The Claimant sought summary judgment against 133 named Defendants. Those named Defendants have all been arrested by various police forces in operations connected to IB protests, whereafter their details were notified to the Claimant under disclosure provisions of the interim injunctions. In addition to summary judgment, the Claimant sought:
(1) A final injunction in terms similar, but not identical to, to those granted in the interim orders, and
(2) A declaration that the use of the SRN for protests is unlawful, and
(3) Damages, though the Claimant stated in its Skeleton Argument that it was not pursuing damages against any of the Defendants, and
(4) Costs.
There are certain procedural orders the Claimant also sought, namely to join the 3 sets of proceedings and to order alternative service. The former is uncontroversial, and I made that order, the latter is less straightforward and I will address that later in this judgment.
The hearing in this case took place on 4 and 5 May 2022. At the end of the hearing I announced some decisions and reserved judgment on others; this judgment sets out the decisions on reserved issues and explains my reasons for all the decisions I have, or had, to take. If any party seeks to appeal, or to vary the order, the handing down of this judgment should be seen as the date of the decision for the purposes of the periods to make any such applications.
The injunction the Claimant sought covers:
(1) The M25 motorway. The well-known 117 mile long motorway that encircles London.
(2) The M25 feeder roads [in slightly wider terms than that granted by Holgate J], as listed in the draft order. To take one example, A1 from A1(M) to Rowley Lane: one of the main roads in and out of London to the North, and a road used to divert traffic when other roads, such as the M1, are closed or blocked.
(3) The Kent roads include the M2, M20, A2 and A20. These roads serve Dover, one of the busiest ports in the UK.
The evidence the Claimant relied on is set out in the witness statements of Nicola Bell and Laura Higson.
Nicola Bell is the Regional Director for NHL's Operations [South East Region]. In her witness statement dated 22 March 2022 she describes the protests that began on 13 September 2021, in which protestors seemingly affiliated to IB blocked motorways by sitting on the carriageways and by gluing themselves to the roadway. She described their activities as “ dangerous and very disruptive” though she provided no details of any actual injury to anyone. Ms Bell also set out the importance of the roads that the Claimant seeks to protect by way of injunctive relief.
Laura Higson is a lawyer at DLA Piper, NHL's solicitors. In her witness statement of 24 March 2022, she set out the protests that had occurred:
(1) On 13 September 2021, protestors blocked slip roads and the carriageway around five junctions on the M25.
(2) Further protests took place on 15 September and 17 September 2021.
(3) On 21 September 2021 protests on the M25 escalated, including by blocking the main carriageway of the M25 in both directions.
(4) On 24 September 2021 protestors blocked the A20 in Kent and subsequently the port of Dover.
(5) On 29 September 2021 protesters blocked, for the second time, Junction 3 of the M25.
(6) On 30 September 2021, protestors glued their hands to the ground at Junction 30 of the M25.
(7) On the morning of 1 October 2021, IB reported that around 30 protestors from IB blocked Junction 3 of the M4 and Junction 1 of the M1.
(8) On 4 October 2021, IB reported that “ 54 people from Insulate Britain have blocked three major routes in the capital”, with protestors blocking the Blackwall Tunnel, Hanger Lane, Arnos Grove and Wandsworth Bridge [all of which do not fall within the SRN].
(9) On 8 October 2021, protestors from IB blocked the M25 at Junction 25.
(10) On 13 October 2021, IB protests took place on the M25.
(11) On 27 October 2021, IB protestors blocked part of the A40 in West London and a roundabout in Dartford.
(12) On 29 October 2021, 19 IB protestors disrupted traffic at two locations on the M25. 10 protestors walked between lanes of oncoming traffic between Junction 28 and Junction 29 of the M25, and a further 9 protestors entered onto the motorway between Junction 21 and Junction 22.
(13) On 2 November 2021, around 60 IB protestors disrupted traffic on Junction 23 of the M25
(14) There have been other protests from time to time in central London. For example, on 20 November 2021 about 400 people blocked Lambeth Bridge.
Ms Higson also addressed the risk of future protests. In her 24 March statement, she set out a press release in the name of IB, dated 7 February 2022:
We did not take part in this campaign to start an insulation brand. We did not cause you disruption to make history as Britain's quickest growing advertising campaign. We took part to force our government to stop failing its people. We will continue our campaign of civil resistance because we only have the next two to three years to sort it out and prevent us completely failing our children and hitting climate tipping points we cannot control.
Now we must accept that we have lost another year, so our next campaign of civil resistance against the betrayal of this country must be even more ambitious. More of us must take a stand. More of you need to join us. We don't get to be bystanders. We either act against evil or we participate in it. We haven't gone away. We're just getting started.
Ms Higson reported a further IB posting spoke of plans for a “ Rave on the M25” on Facebook, beginning at 12pm on 2 April 2022 and ending at 4am on 3 April 2022. This event does not seem to have taken place. Ms Higson then set out a series of news releases that mainly concern another group, “ Just Stop Oil” [“JSO”] with whom IB wrote of having formed an alliance. The focus of the JSO posts was very much on acting so as to interfere with various parts of the oil industry and while there have been many such protests reported in the press and other media, and the Courts have dealt with a number of applications by Oil companies for injunctions, few have targeted the SRN.
Ms Higson also detailed the attitude of at least some protestors towards the Courts in general and injunctions in particular. I can summarise those public comments as expressing views that range from defiance to complete disinterest. Those comments by people associated with IB were put in evidence by the Claimant in support of the application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transport for London v Persons Unknown
...particular I have in mind the judgments of Bennathan J and the Court of Appeal in the case which I refer to as NHL v IB, reported at [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB) and [2023] EWCA Civ 182 respectively, and the judgments of Freedman J and Cavanagh J in the case which I refer to as TfL v JSO, report......
-
National Highways Ltd v Persons Unknown
...No: CA-2022-001066 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION BENNATHAN J [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Myriam Stacey KC, Admas Habteslasie and Michael Fry (instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP) f......
-
High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Four Categories of Persons Unknown
...Limited v Persons Unknown and others [2021] EWHC 3081 (QB) (Lavender J); National Highways Limited v Persons Unknown and others [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB) (Bennathan 54 I have the Revised HS2 Land Plans in hard copy form. I have studied them. They are clear, detailed and precise. I reject any ......
-
Shell UK v Persons Unknown
...a provision: see Johnson J's judgment on the petrol stations claim at [5]–[6], citing National Highways Limited v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB) at [20]–[22] and Barking and Dagenham at [89]. In Esso Petroleum Company Limited v Breen and Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB) (“ Bre......