North Warwickshire Borough Council v The Defendants Listed at Schedule a to this Judgment

Hearing date: 18 September 2025.

Judgment handed down remotely at 10am on 23 September 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by email and by release to the National Archives.

APPROVED JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is the first annual review of an injunction granted in this matter to North Warwickshire Borough Council (“the Council”). The Council seek continuation of the existing order and power of arrest.

The Defendants are a combination of ‘Persons Unknown’ and named individuals connected with protest activity at an inland oil terminal known as Kingsbury Oil Terminal (“the Terminal”) in Kingsbury, Warwickshire. None of the Defendants attended or were represented at the review hearing.

Background

The claim arose from protest activity that occurred in 2022 inside the perimeter and in the locality of the Terminal. The factual and procedural background to the claim is set out at [3]–[13] and [18]–[43] of the judgment that followed the trial: North Warwickshire Borough Council v Barber & Others [2024] EWHC 2254 (KB) (‘ NWBC’).

On 6 September 2024, I granted a ‘final’ order, prohibiting protests within the boundary of the Terminal and restricting certain protest activity within the locality of the Terminal (‘the Injunction’). A power of arrest was attached to the Injunction, pursuant to s.27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The Injunction was to remain effective until 16:00 on 6 September 2027, subject to annual reviews. The hearing on 18 September 2025 was the first such review.

Service

Paragraph 11 of the Injunction granted permission to the Council to serve the Injunction and power of arrest by alternative means. The service requirements fell into one of three categories. Those Defendants (all named individuals) identified in paragraph 11(a) could be served by recorded first class post. Those Defendants (again all named individuals) identified in paragraph 11(b) could be served by email. Those Defendants (some named individuals and some categories of persons unknown) identified in paragraph 11(c) could be served by various alternative methods specified in Schedule 3 to the Injunction. The Claimant was required to complete all of the steps identified in paragraph 1(a)-(h) of Schedule 3 to effect service on the paragraph 11(c) category of Defendants.

Paragraph 5 of the Injunction provided the time, date and location of the review hearing. Therefore, even if a Defendant had not been present in court when the Injunction was made on 6 September 2024, they would have been provided with notice of the review hearing on being served with the Injunction.

The Council has filed a number of certificates of service in respect of the Injunction and power of arrest. The paragraph 11(a) Defendants were deemed served on 18 September 2024. The paragraph 11(b) Defendants were deemed served on 16 September 2024.

In respect of service on the paragraph 11(c) Defendants, the Council relies on two certificates of service. The first is said to relate to the requirements of paragraph 1(b) – (h) of Schedule 3, and gives a deemed date of service of 26 September 2024. The second certificate relates to the erection of 17 A1 sized signs around the boundary perimeter of the Terminal, required by paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3, and gives a deemed date of service of 21 December 2024. Mr Manning explained it had taken some time for the signage to be manufactured.

During the hearing, I queried whether the Council had complied with paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 3, namely the requirement to place a copy of the Injunction and power of arrest prominently at the entrances to the Terminal. That step did not appear to be referred to in either of the relevant certificates of service. After taking instructions, Mr Manning confirmed that the Council had not placed separate copies of the Injunction and power of arrest at the entrances. The Council's rationale was that the A1 sized signage required by paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3 provided information about the Injunction and power of arrest, and a QR code link to the documents, and such signage was placed prominently at the entrances. Mr Manning asked the Court to approve the alternative service steps taken to date as amounting to good service of the Injunction and power of arrest on the paragraph 11(c) Defendants. I indicated during the hearing that I was prepared to accede to that submission in circumstances where the aim of publicising the detail of the Injunction and power of arrest in prominent positions at the entrances to the Terminal had still been achieved, albeit via the A1 signage. I do however make it clear that the Court expects a party with the benefit of an alternative service provision to abide by all requirements directed by the Court. It is not appropriate for such a party to take a unilateral decision as to which steps to comply with, rather than making a formal application to vary the terms of alternative service.

Paragraph 6 of the Injunction required the Council to file and serve any updating evidence 21 days prior to the review hearing. The Council's updating evidence is contained in the 5th witness statement of Mr Steven Maxey, the Council's Chief Executive, dated 27 August 2025. The Injunction made no provision as to how the updating evidence should be served. It did not need to as paragraph 7 of an earlier order of Soole J, dated 6 December 2023, granted the Council permission to serve any document filed in the proceedings by the methods specified in paragraphs 7(i) to (iii) of that order. As with service of the Injunction, the Defendants were categorised into three groups. The first to be served by recorded first class post, the second by email and the third (which includes the persons unknown Defendants) by a variety of alternative service methods. The paragraph 7(i) Defendants were served by first class post on 30 August 2025. The paragraph 7(ii) Defendants were deemed served by email on 11 September 2025. The paragraph 7(iii) Defendants were deemed served by various alternative means on 28 August 2025.

In light of the aforementioned, I am satisfied that the Defendants have been served with the Injunction and power of arrest, and updating evidence, and were thus alive of the review hearing.

Legal Framework

The importance of a review hearing, particularly in cases involving persons unknown, was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2023] UKSC 47 (“ Wolverhampton”). At [225] the review hearing:

“…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.”

A review hearing is not an opportunity to revisit the original merits of the claim afresh. The proper focus of the review is to consider whether anything material has changed since the injunction and power of arrest were granted. Material changes may be factual and/or developments in the law since the order was granted. If there has been a material change or changes, the Court needs to question whether the scope of the injunction needs amending or indeed whether there remains a compelling need for any kind of injunction or power or arrest at all. Such an approach is consistent with the views expressed in a number of post- Wolverhampton cases including by Ritchie J in HS2 v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) at [32]–[33], Hill J in Valero v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB) (“ Valero”) at [20]–[23], and Sweeting J in Esso Petroleum Company v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1768 (KB) (“ Esso”) at [5]–[8].

The evidence

The Council relies on the updating evidence in Mr Maxey's 5 ^th witness statement. Mr Maxey has undertaken an internal review of the current need for an injunction and power of arrest, and remains of the view that they are necessary. His reasoning is as follows.

First, Mr Maxey states that Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, the main protest groups with which known Defendants to the claim are affiliated, remain active. He points to the current homepage of Just Stop Oil's website which reads “JUST GETTING STARTED” and boasts that civil resistance is how Just Stop Oil “won no new oil and gas licences in 2024.” The website continues “We know how to win, but it's going to take all of us” and “A new revolutionary direct action campaign is coming. Help us build what's next.”

Second, Mr Maxey states that the Council is still being notified of planed direct-action by other, unaffiliated climate action groups. He states that as recently as July 2025, the police informed the Council of information suggesting direct-action protests were being planned by environmentalists that summer. He expresses concern that the covert nature of operation of such groups makes it impossible for the Council or police to engage with those in charge of organising such protests to ascertain whether the Terminal is a target and, if so, to discuss how any protest can be conducted safely.

Third, Mr Maxey notes that the nature of risks posed by direct action or civil disobedience at the Terminal has not changed. The Terminal...