Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeline Adams & Ors

Thurrock Council & Anor v Madeline Adams & Ors

The court found that the Claimants demonstrated a compelling need for continued injunctive relief against the remaining named and unnamed Defendants due to the real and imminent risk of further unlawful protest activity causing public nuisance and trespass. The scope of the injunction is proportionate, targets only unlawful conduct, and does not prevent lawful protest. The power of arrest is justified as the prohibited activities carry a significant risk of harm. The objections to the breadth and clarity of the injunction's terms were rejected. The injunction will continue for five years, subject to annual review and the right to apply for variation or discharge.

Parties
Claimant: Thurrock Council; Claimant: Essex County Council; Defendant: Madeline Adams; Defendant: Charles Philip Laurie (Phil Laurie); Defendant: Other Named Defendants (as listed at Schedule 1 to the Claim Form); Defendant: Persons Unknown (various categories as described in the claim)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunctive Relief / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Final injunction granted against remaining named and unnamed Defendants; power of arrest continued; objections to scope and terms of injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Trespass, Protest Law, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Quia Timet Injunctions, Police Powers
Civil Procedure Public Law Human Rights Injunctions Public Nuisance Trespass Protest Law Freedom of Expression +3 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurrock Council

Claimant

Essex County Council

Claimant

Madeline Adams

Defendant

Charles Philip Laurie (Phil Laurie)

Defendant

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

Defendant

Persons Unknown (various categories as described in the claim)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunctive Relief / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted against named and unnamed defendants to restrain protest activities near fuel and oil terminals.
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the injunction is proportionate and justified under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.
  3. 3 Whether the power of arrest should be attached to the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants demonstrated a compelling need for continued injunctive relief against the remaining named and unnamed Defendants due to the real and imminent risk of further unlawful protest activity causing public nuisance and trespass. The scope of the injunction is proportionate, targets only unlawful conduct, and does not prevent lawful protest. The power of arrest is justified as the prohibited activities carry a significant risk of harm. The objections to the breadth and clarity of the injunction's terms were rejected. The injunction will continue for five years, subject to annual review and the right to apply for variation or discharge.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted against remaining named and unnamed Defendants; power of arrest continued; objections to scope and terms of injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • Injunction to continue for five years from the hearing date, subject to annual review.
  • Power of arrest attached to all substantive prohibitions in the order.