Esso Petroleum Company, Limited v Scott Breen & Ors

Esso Petroleum Company, Limited v Scott Breen & Ors

The interim injunction is continued because the Claimant has demonstrated a serious issue to be tried under the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the risk of further harm is real and imminent, damages are not an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience and proportionality strongly favour the Claimant. The injunction terms are sufficiently clear, limited in scope, and do not unlawfully restrain freedom of expression or assembly. Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply as the acts in question are not 'publication'.

Parties
Claimant: Esso Petroleum Company, Limited; First Defendant: Scott Breen; Second Defendant: Persons Unknown who are described in Annex 1 to the Claim Form dated 10th August 2022; Interested Person: Jane Suzanne Everest; Interested Person: Hannah Shelley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Return Date Hearing for Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued for 4 months with amendments to clarify intention to cause damage and to remove ambiguous language.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Protest Law, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Proportionality, Trespass, Criminal Damage
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Protest Law Unlawful Means Conspiracy Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly +3 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esso Petroleum Company, Limited

Claimant

Scott Breen

First Defendant

Persons Unknown who are described in Annex 1 to the Claim Form dated 10th August 2022

Second Defendant

Jane Suzanne Everest

Interested Person

Hannah Shelley

Interested Person

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Return Date Hearing for Continuation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunction restraining protest activities against the pipeline project should be continued
  2. 2 Whether the tort of unlawful means conspiracy is available to the Claimant in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the injunction terms are sufficiently clear, proportionate, and justified under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction is continued because the Claimant has demonstrated a serious issue to be tried under the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the risk of further harm is real and imminent, damages are not an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience and proportionality strongly favour the Claimant. The injunction terms are sufficiently clear, limited in scope, and do not unlawfully restrain freedom of expression or assembly. Section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply as the acts in question are not 'publication'.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued for 4 months with amendments to clarify intention to cause damage and to remove ambiguous language.

Orders

  • The interim injunction granted by Eyre J is continued for 4 months from the date of this decision, restraining specified acts as amended.
  • Parties to agree directions for future conduct of the case and trial timetable within 7 days; failing agreement, written submissions on directions and costs to be filed within 14 days.