Exolum Pipeline System Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1015 (KB) (20 February 2024)

Exolum Pipeline System Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1015 (KB) (20 February 2024)

There is a compelling need for the injunction to continue due to the ongoing risk of dangerous protest activity at the claimants' sites, the effectiveness of the injunction as a deterrent, and the absence of any objections or change in circumstances that would justify discontinuance. The procedural and notice requirements have been met, and the continuation of the injunction is proportionate and necessary to protect property and life.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1015 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Exolum Pipeline System Limited & Ors; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application Under CPR Part 8 / Second Review of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction continued until next review
Legal Topics
Injunctions Against Persons Unknown, Protest Law, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Injunctions Against Persons Unknown Protest Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Contempt of Court

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Exolum Pipeline System Limited & Ors

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application Under CPR Part 8 / Second Review of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a compelling need to continue the injunction against persons unknown
  2. 2 Whether the procedural requirements for notice and review have been met
  3. 3 Whether the injunction remains proportionate in light of Convention rights (Articles 10 and 11)

Ratio Decidendi

There is a compelling need for the injunction to continue due to the ongoing risk of dangerous protest activity at the claimants' sites, the effectiveness of the injunction as a deterrent, and the absence of any objections or change in circumstances that would justify discontinuance. The procedural and notice requirements have been met, and the continuation of the injunction is proportionate and necessary to protect property and life.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued until next review

Orders

  • The injunction is to continue in force until the next review.
  • The next review will be listed on the first available date after 20 February 2025.