Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 3427 (Ch) (21 December 2017)

Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 3427 (Ch) (21 December 2017)

There should be no order for costs in respect of the Claimants' application of 31 July 2017 and no orders for costs in respect of the Sixth and Seventh Defendants' applications of 6 September 2017, as the case involved issues of public importance and the participation of the defendants was of assistance to the court. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for an appeal.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3427 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: INEOS Upstream Ltd; Claimant: INEOS 120 Exploration Ltd; Claimant: INEOS Properties Ltd; Claimant: INEOS Industries Ltd; Claimant: John Barrie Palfreyman; Claimant: Alan John Skepper; Claimant: Janette Mary Skepper; Claimant: Steven John Skepper; Claimant: John Ambrose Hollingworth; Claimant: Linda Katharina Hollingworth; First Defendant: Persons Unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the Claimant(s) on land and buildings shown shaded red on the plans attached to the amended claim form; Second Defendant: Persons Unknown interfering with the First and Second Claimants' rights to pass and repass with or without vehicles, materials and equipment over private access roads on land shown shaded orange on the plans annexed to the amended claim form without the consent of the Claimant(s); Third Defendant: Persons Unknown interfering with the right of way enjoyed by the Claimant(s)/or its affiliates and each of its and their agents, servants, contractors, sub-contractors, group companies, licensees, employees, partners, consultants, family members and friends over land shaded purple on the plans annexed to the amended claim form; Fourth Defendant: Persons Unknown pursuing any course of conduct such as amounts to harassment of the Claimants and/or any third party contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 with the intention set out in paragraph 10 of the order obstructing, impeding or interfering with the lawful activities undertaken by the Claimant(s) and its agents, servants, contractors, licensees and employees in connection with the searching or boring for or getting any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata and all associated and connected activities; Fifth Defendant: Persons Unknown combining together to commit the unlawful acts as specified in paragraph 11 of the order with the intention set out in paragraph 11 of the order; Sixth Defendant: Mr Joseph Boyd; Seventh Defendant: Mr Joseph Corré
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Written Submissions on Costs and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
No order as to costs; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Costs, Permission to Appeal, Harassment, Public Interest Litigation
Civil Procedure Property Law Tort Law Injunctions Costs Permission to Appeal Harassment Public Interest Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INEOS Upstream Ltd

Claimant

INEOS 120 Exploration Ltd

Claimant

INEOS Properties Ltd

Claimant

INEOS Industries Ltd

Claimant

John Barrie Palfreyman

Claimant

Alan John Skepper

Claimant

Janette Mary Skepper

Claimant

Steven John Skepper

Claimant

John Ambrose Hollingworth

Claimant

Linda Katharina Hollingworth

Claimant

Persons Unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the Claimant(s) on land and buildings shown shaded red on the plans attached to the amended claim form

First Defendant

Persons Unknown interfering with the First and Second Claimants' rights to pass and repass with or without vehicles, materials and equipment over private access roads on land shown shaded orange on the plans annexed to the amended claim form without the consent of the Claimant(s)

Second Defendant

Persons Unknown interfering with the right of way enjoyed by the Claimant(s)/or its affiliates and each of its and their agents, servants, contractors, sub-contractors, group companies, licensees, employees, partners, consultants, family members and friends over land shaded purple on the plans annexed to the amended claim form

Third Defendant

Persons Unknown pursuing any course of conduct such as amounts to harassment of the Claimants and/or any third party contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 with the intention set out in paragraph 10 of the order obstructing, impeding or interfering with the lawful activities undertaken by the Claimant(s) and its agents, servants, contractors, licensees and employees in connection with the searching or boring for or getting any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata and all associated and connected activities

Fourth Defendant

Persons Unknown combining together to commit the unlawful acts as specified in paragraph 11 of the order with the intention set out in paragraph 11 of the order

Fifth Defendant

Mr Joseph Boyd

Sixth Defendant

Mr Joseph Corré

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Written Submissions on Costs and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following applications for injunctive relief and subsequent applications by individual defendants
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted to the Sixth and Seventh Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

There should be no order for costs in respect of the Claimants' application of 31 July 2017 and no orders for costs in respect of the Sixth and Seventh Defendants' applications of 6 September 2017, as the case involved issues of public importance and the participation of the defendants was of assistance to the court. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for an appeal.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • No order for costs in respect of the Claimants' application of 31 July 2017.
  • No order for costs in respect of the Sixth and Seventh Defendants' applications of 6 September 2017.