Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeleine Adams & Ors

Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeleine Adams & Ors

The continuation of the injunction against Persons Unknown is justified because there is compelling evidence of a real and imminent risk of further unlawful protest activity causing public nuisance and trespass, the legal requirements for such an injunction are satisfied, the injunction is proportionate and necessary to protect the rights and interests of the Claimants and the public, and it strikes a fair balance with the protestors' Convention rights. The injunction is time-limited, subject to review, and does not prohibit lawful protest.

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 (categories as defined in the claim form)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction/quia Timet/public Nuisance/trespass) / Continuation of Interim Injunction; Post Hearing Judgment
Outcome
Injunction continued against Persons Unknown; other orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Trespass, Protest Law, Quia Timet Relief, Persons Unknown Proceedings, Highways Law, Freedom of Assembly, Article 10 ECHR, Article 11 ECHR
Civil Procedure Public Law Tort Law Human Rights Injunctions Public Nuisance Trespass Protest Law +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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 (categories as defined in the claim form)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction/quia Timet/public Nuisance/trespass) / Continuation of Interim Injunction; Post Hearing Judgment

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
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a 'newcomer' or 'Persons Unknown' injunction are met under current law
  3. 3 Whether the injunction strikes a fair balance between protestors' Convention rights and the rights of others

Ratio Decidendi

The continuation of the injunction against Persons Unknown is justified because there is compelling evidence of a real and imminent risk of further unlawful protest activity causing public nuisance and trespass, the legal requirements for such an injunction are satisfied, the injunction is proportionate and necessary to protect the rights and interests of the Claimants and the public, and it strikes a fair balance with the protestors' Convention rights. The injunction is time-limited, subject to review, and does not prohibit lawful protest.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued against Persons Unknown; other orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Continuation of the injunction against the defined categories of Persons Unknown as per the order of Foster J, with power of arrest attached to specified provisions.
  • Order remains in effect pending further hearing regarding remaining named Defendants.