Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

Interim injunctions are granted because there is an imminent and real risk of unlawful protest activities (including trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy) against the Claimants’ sites and supply chain, and the balance of rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR does not justify direct action that interferes with lawful business and property rights. Injunctions must be clear, precise, and limited to specific unlawful acts. Injunctions against harassment are refused due to lack of clarity.

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 consent; Second Defendant: Persons Unknown interfering with rights of way; Third Defendant: Persons Unknown interfering with right of way enjoyed by Claimants; Fourth Defendant: Persons Unknown pursuing conduct amounting to harassment; Fifth Defendant: Persons Unknown combining to commit unlawful acts; Sixth Defendant: Mr Joseph Boyd; Seventh Defendant: Mr Joseph Corré
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Interim injunctions granted in part
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Quia Timet Relief, Trespass, Public Nuisance, Harassment, Conspiracy to Injure, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Law Property Law Interim Injunctions Quia Timet Relief Trespass Public Nuisance +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 24 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 consent

First Defendant

Persons Unknown interfering with rights of way

Second Defendant

Persons Unknown interfering with right of way enjoyed by Claimants

Third Defendant

Persons Unknown pursuing conduct amounting to harassment

Fourth Defendant

Persons Unknown combining to commit unlawful acts

Fifth Defendant

Mr Joseph Boyd

Sixth Defendant

Mr Joseph Corré

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctions should be granted to restrain protest activities against fracking operators
  2. 2 Whether injunctions can be granted against persons unknown
  3. 3 Balancing Articles 10 and 11 ECHR rights with property and business rights

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunctions are granted because there is an imminent and real risk of unlawful protest activities (including trespass, obstruction, and conspiracy) against the Claimants’ sites and supply chain, and the balance of rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR does not justify direct action that interferes with lawful business and property rights. Injunctions must be clear, precise, and limited to specific unlawful acts. Injunctions against harassment are refused due to lack of clarity.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions granted in part

Orders

  • Injunctions restraining trespass on specified sites granted
  • Injunctions restraining obstruction of highway and slow walking granted