Thurrock Council & Anor v Adams & Ors [2024] EWHC 2576 (KB) (11 October 2024)

Thurrock Council & Anor v Adams & Ors [2024] EWHC 2576 (KB) (11 October 2024)

The continuation of the injunction against Persons Unknown is justified because there is clear, ongoing, and imminent risk of public nuisance and trespass arising from protest activity targeting critical fuel infrastructure and highways in Thurrock and Essex. The evidence demonstrates substantial past harm, ongoing threats, and the inability to identify all potential protestors. The legal requirements for a 'newcomer' injunction, including proportionality under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, are satisfied. The injunction is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and interests of the public and to prevent further unlawful disruption.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2576 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Thurrock Council; Claimant: Essex County Council; Defendant: Madeleine Adams; Defendant: Other Named Defendants (as listed at Schedule 1 to the Claim Form); Defendant: Persons Unknown (seven defined categories)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction Application) / Continuation of Interim Injunction; Hearing on Continuation Against Persons Unknown
Outcome
Injunction continued against Persons Unknown; other orders made as set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Trespass, Protest Law, Quia Timet Relief, Persons Unknown Orders, Highway Obstruction, Article 10 ECHR, Article 11 ECHR
Civil Procedure Public Law Human Rights Tort Law Injunctions Public Nuisance Trespass Protest Law +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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurrock Council

Claimant

Essex County Council

Claimant

Madeleine Adams

Defendant

Other Named Defendants (as listed at Schedule 1 to the Claim Form)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (seven defined categories)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction Application) / Continuation of Interim Injunction; Hearing on Continuation Against Persons Unknown

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continuation of an injunction against Persons Unknown is justified to prevent public nuisance and trespass arising from protest activity targeting fuel infrastructure and highways.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a 'newcomer' or 'Persons Unknown' injunction are satisfied under the principles established by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2024] 2 WLR 45.
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality requirements under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR are met in restraining protest activity by way of injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The continuation of the injunction against Persons Unknown is justified because there is clear, ongoing, and imminent risk of public nuisance and trespass arising from protest activity targeting critical fuel infrastructure and highways in Thurrock and Essex. The evidence demonstrates substantial past harm, ongoing threats, and the inability to identify all potential protestors. The legal requirements for a 'newcomer' injunction, including proportionality under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, are satisfied. The injunction is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and interests of the public and to prevent further unlawful disruption.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued against Persons Unknown; other orders made as set out in the judgment.

Orders

  • Continuation of the injunction against the seven defined categories of Persons Unknown.
  • Order remains in effect against remaining named Defendants until further hearing in October 2024.