Boyd & Anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 515 (03 April 2019)

Boyd & Anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 515 (03 April 2019)

There is no legal prohibition on granting quia timet injunctions against persons unknown who are not currently in existence but will come into existence when they commit the prohibited tort, provided the injunction is necessary, clear, precise, and limited. However, the injunctions granted in this case against public nuisance and conspiracy to injure were too wide and uncertain, and the judge failed to properly apply section 12(3) HRA. Only the injunctions against trespass and interference with private rights of way were upheld, subject to reconsideration of temporal limits and section 12(3) compliance.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 515
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Boyd; Appellant: Joseph Corré; Respondents: INEOS Upstream Limited & 9 Others; Intervener: Friends of the Earth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Injunctions
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions Against Persons Unknown, Quia Timet Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Trespass, Nuisance, Conspiracy to Injure, Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998, Protest Law, Supply Chain Disruption
Civil Procedure Human Rights Environmental Law Tort Law Injunctions Against Persons Unknown Quia Timet Injunctions Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly +6 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Boyd

Appellant

Joseph Corré

Appellant

INEOS Upstream Limited & 9 Others

Respondents

Friends of the Earth

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunctions can be granted against persons unknown
  2. 2 Whether the judge properly applied section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the injunction restraining conspiracy to harm claimants by unlawful acts against contractors was properly granted

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal prohibition on granting quia timet injunctions against persons unknown who are not currently in existence but will come into existence when they commit the prohibited tort, provided the injunction is necessary, clear, precise, and limited. However, the injunctions granted in this case against public nuisance and conspiracy to injure were too wide and uncertain, and the judge failed to properly apply section 12(3) HRA. Only the injunctions against trespass and interference with private rights of way were upheld, subject to reconsideration of temporal limits and section 12(3) compliance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Injunctions against third and fifth defendants (public nuisance and conspiracy to injure) discharged and claims dismissed against them.
  • Injunctions against first and second defendants (trespass and interference with private rights of way) maintained pending remission to the judge to reconsider interim relief in light of section 12(3) HRA and to determine appropriate temporal limits.