Boyd & Anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors

Boyd & Anor v Ineos Upstream Ltd & Ors

There is no conceptual or legal prohibition on granting injunctions against persons unknown who may come into existence by committing the prohibited tort, provided the injunction is clear, precise, and notice can be given. However, injunctions relating to public nuisance and conspiracy to injure were too wide and uncertain, and section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 was not adequately applied. Only injunctions restraining trespass and interference with private rights of way were upheld, subject to reconsideration of temporal limits and section 12(3) HRA.

Parties
Appellant: Joseph Boyd; Appellant: Joseph Corré; Respondent: 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
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions Against Persons Unknown, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Public and Private Nuisance, Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means, Trespass
Civil Procedure Injunctions Human Rights Injunctions Against Persons Unknown Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Public and Private Nuisance Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means +1 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Boyd

Appellant

Joseph Corré

Appellant

INEOS Upstream Limited & 9 Others

Respondent

Friends of the Earth

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunctions can be granted against persons unknown
  2. 2 Adequacy of application of section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Appropriateness of injunction restraining conspiracy to harm claimants by unlawful acts against contractors

Ratio Decidendi

There is no conceptual or legal prohibition on granting injunctions against persons unknown who may come into existence by committing the prohibited tort, provided the injunction is clear, precise, and notice can be given. However, injunctions relating to public nuisance and conspiracy to injure were too wide and uncertain, and section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 was not adequately applied. Only injunctions restraining trespass and interference with private rights of way were upheld, subject to reconsideration of temporal limits and section 12(3) HRA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Injunctions against third and fifth defendants discharged
  • Claims against third and fifth defendants dismissed