Valero Energy Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown and Others

Hearing date: 17th January 2024

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 14.00pm on Friday 26 th January 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

The Parties

The Claimants are three companies who are part of a large petrochemical group called the Valero Group and own or have a right to possession of the 8 Sites defined out below.

The “4 Organisations” relevant to this judgment are:

2.1 Just Stop Oil.

2.2 Extinction Rebellion.

2.3 Insulate Britain.

2.4 Youth Climate Swarm.

I have been provided with a little information about the persons who set up and run some of these 4 Organisations. They appear to be crowdfunded partly by donations. A man called Richard Hallam appears to be a co-founder of 3 of them.

The Defendants are firstly, persons unknown (PUs) connected with 4 Organisations who trespass or stay on the 8 Sites defined below. Secondly, they are PUs who block access to the 8 Sites defined below or otherwise interfere with the access to the 8 Sites by the Claimants, their servants, agents, licensees or invitees. Thirdly, they are named persons who have been involved in suspected tortious behaviour or whom the Claimants fear will be involved in tortious behaviour at the 8 Sites and the relevant access roads.

The 8 Sites

The “8 Sites” are:

4.1 the first Claimant's Pembroke oil refinery, Angle, Pembroke SA71 5SJ (shown outlined red on plan A in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023);

4.2 the first Claimant's Pembroke oil refinery jetties at Angle, Pembroke SA71 5SJ (as shown outlined red on plan B in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023);

4.3 the second Claimant's Manchester oil terminal at Churchill Way, Trafford Park, Manchester M17 1BS (shown outlined red on plan C in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023);

4.4 the second Claimant's Kingsbury oil terminal at plot B, Trinity Road, Kingsbury, Tamworth B78 2EJ (shown outlined red on plan D in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023);

4.5 the second Claimant's Plymouth oil terminal at Oakfield Terrace Road, Cattedown, Plymouth PL4 0RY (shown outlined red on plan E in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023);

4.6 the second Claimant's Cardiff oil terminal at Roath Dock, Rover Way, Cardiff CF10 4US (shown outlined red on plan F in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023);

4.7 the second Claimant's Avonmouth oil terminal at Holesmouth Road, Royal Edward dock, Avonmouth BS11 9BT (shown outlined red on the plan G in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023);

4.8 the third Claimant's Pembrokeshire terminal at Main Road, Waterston, Milford Haven SA73 1DR (shown outlined red on plan H in Schedule 1 to the Order made by Bourne J on 28.7.2023).

Bundles

For the hearing I was provided with a core bundle and 5 lever arch files making up the supplementary bundle, a bundle of authorities, a skeleton argument, a draft order and a final witness statement from Ms Hurle. Nothing was provided by any Defendant.

Summary

The 4 Organisations and members of the public connected with them seek to disrupt the petrochemical industry in England and Wales in furtherance of their political objectives and demands. After various public threats and protests and on police intelligence the Claimants issued a Claim Form on the 18th of March 2022 alleging that they feared tortious trespass and nuisance by persons unknown connected with the 4 Organisations at their 8 Sites and their access roads and seeking an interim injunction prohibiting that tortious behaviour.

Various interim prohibitions were granted by Mr Justice Butcher on the 21st of March 2022 in an ex-parte interim injunction protecting the 8 Sites and access thereto. However, protests involving tortious action took place at the Claimant's and other companies' Kingsbury site between the 1st and the 15th of April 2022 leading to not less than 86 protesters being arrested. The Claimants applied to continue their injunction and it was renewed by various High Court judges and eventually replaced by a similar interim injunction made by Mr Justice Bourne on the 28th of July 2023.

On the 12th of December 2023 the Claimants applied for summary judgment and for a final injunction to last five years with annual reviews. This judgment deals with the final hearing of that application which took place before me.

Despite valid service of the application, evidence and notice of hearing, none of the named Defendants attended at the hearing which was in open Court and no UPs attended at the hearing, nor did any member of the public as far as I could see in Court. The Claimants' counsel informed me that no communication took place between any named Defendant and the Claimants' solicitors in relation to the hearing other than by way of negotiations for undertakings for 43 of the named Defendants who all promised not to commit the feared torts in future.

The Issues

The issues before me were as follows:

10.1 Are the elements of CPR Part 24 satisfied so that summary judgment can be entered?

10.2 Should a final injunction against unknown persons and named Defendants be granted on the evidence presented by the Claimants?

10.3 What should the terms of any such injunction be?

The ancillary applications

The Claimants also made various tidying up applications which I can deal with briefly here. They applied to amend the Claimants' names, to change the word “limited” to a shortened version thereof to match the registered names of the companies. They applied to delete two Defendants, whom they accepted were wrongly added to the proceedings (and after the hearing a third). They applied to make minor alterations to the descriptions of the 1st and 2nd Defendants who are unknown persons. The Claimants also applied for permission to apply for summary judgment. This application was made retrospectively to satisfy the requirements of CPR rule 24.4. None of these applications was opposed. I granted all of them and they are to be encompassed in a set of directions which will be issued in an Order.

Pleadings and chronology of the action

In the Claim Form the details of the claims were set out. The Claimants sought a quia timet (since he fears) injunction, fearing that persons would trespass into the 8 Sites and cause danger or damage therein and disrupt the processes carried out therein, or block access to the 8 Sites thereby committing a private nuisance on private roads or a public nuisance on public highways. The Claimants relied on the letter sent by Just Stop Oil dated 14th February 2022 to Her Majesty's Government threatening intervention unless various demands were met. Just Stop Oil asserted they planned to commence action from the 22nd of March 2022. Police intelligence briefings supported the risk of trespass and nuisance at the Claimants' 8 Sites. 3 unidentified groups of persons in connection with the 4 Organisations were categorised as Defendants in the claim as follows: (1) those trespassing onto the 8 Sites; (2) those blockading or obstructing access to the 8 Sites; (3) those carrying out a miscellany of other feared torts such as locking on, tunnelling or encouraging others to commit torts at the 8 Sites or on the access roads thereto. The Claim Form was amended by order of Bennathan J. in April 2022; Re amended by order of Cotter J. in September 2022 and re re amended in July 2023 by order of Bourne J.

In late March 2022 Mr Justice Butcher issued an interim ex parte injunction on a quia timet basis until trial, expressly stating it was not intended to prohibit lawful protest. He prohibited the Defendants from entering or staying on the 8 sites; impeding access to the 8 sites; damaging the Claimants' land; locking on or causing or encouraging others to breach the injunction. The Order provided for various alternative methods of service for the unknown persons by fixing hard copies of the injunction at the entrances and on access road at the 8 Sites, publishing digital copies online at a specific website and sending emails to the 4 Organisations.

Despite the interim injunction, between the 1st and the 7th of April 2022 protesters attended at the Claimants' Kingsbury site and 48 were arrested. Between the 9th and 15th of April 2022 further protesters attended at the Kingsbury site and 38 were arrested. No application to commit any person to prison for contempt was made. The protests were not just at the Claimants' parts of the Kingsbury site. They targeted other owners' sites there too.

On the return date, the...