High Speed Two (HS2) & Anor. v Four Categories of Persons Unknown & Ors.

High Speed Two (HS2) & Anor. v Four Categories of Persons Unknown & Ors.

The claimants have established a sufficient proprietary or possessory right over the HS2 Land, have demonstrated a real and imminent risk of continued trespass and nuisance by both named and unknown defendants, and the terms of the proposed injunction (as amended for clarity and proportionality) are justified, clear, and proportionate. The injunction does not prohibit lawful protest and includes carve-outs for public rights of way and highways. The requirements for service, definition of defendants, and scope comply with established legal principles. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is justified and proportionate in light of the public interest, the scale and nature of the...

Parties
Claimant: High Speed Two (HS2) Limited; Claimant: The Secretary of State for Transport; Defendant: Four Categories of Persons Unknown; Defendant: Ross Monaghan and 58 Other Named Defendants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Injunction Application (not Final Determination)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted (with amendments for clarity and proportionality)
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Trespass, Nuisance, Protest Law, Persons Unknown, Alternative Service, ECHR Articles 10 and 11, Compulsory Purchase, Public/private Nuisance, Proportionality
Civil Procedure Property Law Human Rights Injunctions Trespass Nuisance Protest Law Persons Unknown +5 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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Transport

Claimant

Four Categories of Persons Unknown

Defendant

Ross Monaghan and 58 Other Named Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Injunction Application (not Final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to an interim injunction restraining unlawful protest, trespass, and nuisance on HS2 Land by named and unknown defendants;
  2. 2 Whether the injunction sought is sufficiently clear, proportionate, and compliant with the requirements for orders against persons unknown;
  3. 3 Whether the claimants have sufficient title or right to possession to found an action in trespass and nuisance;

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have established a sufficient proprietary or possessory right over the HS2 Land, have demonstrated a real and imminent risk of continued trespass and nuisance by both named and unknown defendants, and the terms of the proposed injunction (as amended for clarity and proportionality) are justified, clear, and proportionate. The injunction does not prohibit lawful protest and includes carve-outs for public rights of way and highways. The requirements for service, definition of defendants, and scope comply with established legal principles. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is justified and proportionate in light of the public interest, the scale and nature of the...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted (with amendments for clarity and proportionality)

Orders

  • Interim injunction restraining trespass, nuisance, and specified acts by named and unknown defendants on HS2 Land until 31 May 2023, subject to annual review and right to apply for variation or discharge.
  • Alternative service provisions approved as set out in the order.