Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd (t/a Heidelberg Materials UK) v Davies & Ors [2026] EWHC 118 (KB) (23 January 2026)
Service of the 2024 and 2025 Orders by alternative and personal methods was valid for Defendants who were unknown to the Claimant at the time of the relevant Orders. For Defendants who were known to the Claimant, alternative service as 'persons unknown' may not be valid, and further submissions are required. The Defendants' knowledge of the Orders was established by service and circumstances. KD and DJJ were found to have intentionally breached the Orders as alleged. Final decisions regarding DV and DJJ's status as UPs and breach are reserved pending further submissions.
- Citation
- [2026] EWHC 118 (KB)
- Parties
- Claimant: Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited (t/a Heidelberg Materials UK); Defendant: Kylie Davies; Defendant: Darren John Jones; Defendant: Dale Vincent
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Committal for Contempt of Court (civil) / Reserved Judgment Following Part Heard Committal Hearing; Adjourned for Further Submissions and Sanction Evidence
- Outcome
- Part-heard; judgment reserved; findings of breach against KD (18.6.2025) and DJJ (27.5.2025); final decisions on DV and DJJ (18.6.2025) reserved pending further submissions; sanction adjourned.
- Legal Topics
- Service of Injunctions, Persons Unknown Defendants, Alternative Service, Committal for Contempt, Trespass, Protest Law, Sanctions for Contempt
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited (t/a Heidelberg Materials UK)
Claimant
Kylie Davies
Defendant
Darren John Jones
Defendant
Dale Vincent
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Committal for Contempt of Court (civil) / Reserved Judgment Following Part Heard Committal Hearing; Adjourned for Further Submissions and Sanction Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2024 and 2025 High Court injunctions were properly served on the Defendants by alternative and/or personal service methods
- 2 Whether the Defendants were within the definition of 'persons unknown' (UPs) in the injunctions at the relevant times
- 3 Whether the Defendants breached the injunctions and did so intentionally
Ratio Decidendi
Service of the 2024 and 2025 Orders by alternative and personal methods was valid for Defendants who were unknown to the Claimant at the time of the relevant Orders. For Defendants who were known to the Claimant, alternative service as 'persons unknown' may not be valid, and further submissions are required. The Defendants' knowledge of the Orders was established by service and circumstances. KD and DJJ were found to have intentionally breached the Orders as alleged. Final decisions regarding DV and DJJ's status as UPs and breach are reserved pending further submissions.
Court Disposition
Part-heard; judgment reserved; findings of breach against KD (18.6.2025) and DJJ (27.5.2025); final decisions on DV and DJJ (18.6.2025) reserved pending further submissions; sanction adjourned.
Orders
- Hearing adjourned for further submissions on whether DJJ and DV were within the definition of 'persons unknown' in the Orders and on the power to alter announced decisions before final judgment.
- Hearing adjourned for evidence and submissions on sanction and on the use of the eviction notice (KD1).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment