Thurrock Council v Adams [2022] EWHC 1324 (QB) (27 May 2022)

Thurrock Council v Adams [2022] EWHC 1324 (QB) (27 May 2022)

The Claimants established legitimate causes of action in public nuisance and trespass, supported by evidence of past protest activity causing significant harm and risk. The injunction terms, though broad, were justified and proportionate given the risks and statutory duties. Interim injunctive relief was granted against named defendants and persons unknown, with power of arrest attached to relevant prohibitions. Service via signage and QR codes was deemed adequate. No cross-undertaking in damages was required due to the Claimants' statutory duties.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1324
Parties
Claimant: Thurrock Council; Claimant: Essex County Council; Defendant: Madeline Adams; Defendant: Ella Eason; Defendant: Other Named Defendants (as listed at Schedule 1 to the Claim Form); Defendant: Persons Unknown (categories 223-229 as defined in the claim form)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Proceedings / Return Date Hearing Following Grant of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction continued with modifications; power of arrest attached to specified prohibitions; no cross-undertaking in damages required.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Trespass, Protest Law, Persons Unknown, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Power of Arrest, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Public Law Human Rights Tort Law Interim 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurrock Council

Claimant

Essex County Council

Claimant

Madeline Adams

Defendant

Ella Eason

Defendant

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

Defendant

Persons Unknown (categories 223-229 as defined in the claim form)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Proceedings / Return Date Hearing Following Grant of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be continued against named defendants and persons unknown for protest-related acts amounting to public nuisance and/or trespass
  2. 2 Whether the injunction terms are proportionate and enforceable given Articles 10 and 11 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants have standing and proper causes of action

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants established legitimate causes of action in public nuisance and trespass, supported by evidence of past protest activity causing significant harm and risk. The injunction terms, though broad, were justified and proportionate given the risks and statutory duties. Interim injunctive relief was granted against named defendants and persons unknown, with power of arrest attached to relevant prohibitions. Service via signage and QR codes was deemed adequate. No cross-undertaking in damages was required due to the Claimants' statutory duties.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued with modifications; power of arrest attached to specified prohibitions; no cross-undertaking in damages required.

Orders

  • Interim injunction continued against named defendants and persons unknown as defined.
  • Power of arrest attached to paragraphs 2.1 to 2.16 of the injunction.