North Warwickshire Borough Council v Defendants Listed at Schedule A [2025] EWHC 2403 (KB) (23 September 2025)
There have been no material factual or legal changes since the injunction and power of arrest were granted. The risk of protest and direct action remains real and imminent. The alternative service steps taken by the Council are approved as good service. There is no basis to amend or discharge the injunction or power of arrest, nor to require permission before contempt proceedings. The injunction and power of arrest are to continue, with a further review in 12 months.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 2403 (KB)
- Parties
- Claimant: North Warwickshire Borough Council; Defendant: Thomas Barber; Defendant: Michelle Cadet-Rose; Defendant: Timothy Hewes; Defendant: John Howlett; Defendant: John Jordan; Defendant: Carmen Lean; Defendant: Alyson Lee; Defendant: Amy Pritchard; Defendant: Stephen Pritchard; Defendant: Paul Raithby; Defendant: John Smith; Defendant: Ben Taylor; Defendant: Anthony Whitehouse; Defendant: Persons Unknown 19A; Defendant: Persons Unknown 19B; Defendant: Persons Unknown 19C; Defendant: Persons Unknown 19D; Defendant: Mary Adams; Defendant: Collin Aries; Defendant: Stephanie Aylett; Defendant: Marcus Bailie; Defendant: Paul Bell; Defendant: Sarah Benn; Defendant: Ryan Bentley; Defendant: David Robert Barkshire; Defendant: Molly Berry; Defendant: Gillian Bird; Defendant: Paul Bowers; Defendant: Kate Bramfitt; Defendant: Scott Breen; Defendant: Emily Brocklebank; Defendant: Tez Burns; Defendant: George Burrow; Defendant: Jade Calland; Defendant: Caroline Cattermole; Defendant: Michelle Charlesworth; Defendant: Zoe Cohen; Defendant: Jonathan Coleman; Defendant: Jeaninie Donald-McKim; Defendant: Janine Eagling; Defendant: Stephen Eeckelaers; Defendant: Holly June Exley; Defendant: Cameron Ford; Defendant: William Thomas Garratt-Wright; Defendant: Elizabeth Garratt-Wright; Defendant: Alasdair Gibson; Defendant: Stephen Gingell; Defendant: Callum Goode; Defendant: Joanne Grounds; Defendant: Alan Guthrie; Defendant: David Gwyne; Defendant: Scott Hadfield; Defendant: Susan Hampton; Defendant: Jake Handling; Defendant: Gwen Harrison; Defendant: Diana Hekt; Defendant: Eli Hill; Defendant: Joanna Hindley; Defendant: Anna Holland; Defendant: Joe Howlett; Defendant: Eric Hoyland; Defendant: Reuben James; Defendant: Ruth Jarman; Defendant: Stephen Jarvis; Defendant: Samuel Johnson; Defendant: Inez Jones; Defendant: Charlotte Kirin; Defendant: Jerrard Mark Latimer; Defendant: Charles Laurie; Defendant: Peter Lay; Defendant: Victoria Lindsell; Defendant: El Litten; Defendant: David Mann; Defendant: Diana Martin; Defendant: Larch Maxey; Defendant: Elidh McFadden; Defendant: Louis McKechnie; Defendant: Julia Mercer; Defendant: Craig Miller; Defendant: Simon Milner-Edwards; Defendant: Barry Mitchell; Defendant: Darcy Mitchell; Defendant: Eric Moore; Defendant: Peter Morgan; Defendant: Richard Morgan; Defendant: Orla Murphy; Defendant: Joanne Murphy; Defendant: Gilbert Murray; Defendant: Christian Murray-Leslie; Defendant: Rajan Naidu; Defendant: Chloe Naldrett; Defendant: David Nixon; Defendant: Theresa Norton; Defendant: Ryan O Toole; Defendant: George Oakenfold; Defendant: Nicolas Onlay; Defendant: Edward Osbourne; Defendant: Richard Painter; Defendant: David Powter; Defendant: Stephanie Pride; Defendant: Simon Reding; Defendant: Margaret Reid; Defendant: Catherine Rennie-Nash; Defendant: Isabel Rock; Defendant: Caterine Scothorne; Defendant: Gregory Sculthorpe; Defendant: Vivienne Shah; Defendant: Sheila Shatford; Defendant: Daniel Shaw; Defendant: Paul Sheeky; Defendant: Susan Sidey; Defendant: Joshua Smith; Defendant: Kai Springorum; Defendant: Hannah Torrance Bright; Defendant: Jane Touil; Defendant: Sarah Webb; Defendant: Ian Webb; Defendant: William White; Defendant: Lucia Whittaker-De-Abreu; Defendant: Edred Whittingham; Defendant: Caren Wilden; Defendant: Meredith Williams
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 September 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Review / First Annual Review of Final Injunction Order
- Outcome
- Injunction and power of arrest continued; no amendment or discharge ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions Against Protest, Persons Unknown Defendants, Alternative Service, Power of Arrest, Annual Review of Injunction, Environmental Protest, Contempt of Court
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
North Warwickshire Borough Council
Claimant
Thomas Barber
Defendant
Michelle Cadet-Rose
Defendant
Timothy Hewes
Defendant
John Howlett
Defendant
John Jordan
Defendant
Carmen Lean
Defendant
Alyson Lee
Defendant
Amy Pritchard
Defendant
Stephen Pritchard
Defendant
Paul Raithby
Defendant
John Smith
Defendant
Ben Taylor
Defendant
Anthony Whitehouse
Defendant
Persons Unknown 19A
Defendant
Persons Unknown 19B
Defendant
Persons Unknown 19C
Defendant
Persons Unknown 19D
Defendant
Mary Adams
Defendant
Collin Aries
Defendant
Stephanie Aylett
Defendant
Marcus Bailie
Defendant
Paul Bell
Defendant
Sarah Benn
Defendant
Ryan Bentley
Defendant
David Robert Barkshire
Defendant
Molly Berry
Defendant
Gillian Bird
Defendant
Paul Bowers
Defendant
Kate Bramfitt
Defendant
Scott Breen
Defendant
Emily Brocklebank
Defendant
Tez Burns
Defendant
George Burrow
Defendant
Jade Calland
Defendant
Caroline Cattermole
Defendant
Michelle Charlesworth
Defendant
Zoe Cohen
Defendant
Jonathan Coleman
Defendant
Jeaninie Donald-McKim
Defendant
Janine Eagling
Defendant
Stephen Eeckelaers
Defendant
Holly June Exley
Defendant
Cameron Ford
Defendant
William Thomas Garratt-Wright
Defendant
Elizabeth Garratt-Wright
Defendant
Alasdair Gibson
Defendant
Stephen Gingell
Defendant
Callum Goode
Defendant
Joanne Grounds
Defendant
Alan Guthrie
Defendant
David Gwyne
Defendant
Scott Hadfield
Defendant
Susan Hampton
Defendant
Jake Handling
Defendant
Gwen Harrison
Defendant
Diana Hekt
Defendant
Eli Hill
Defendant
Joanna Hindley
Defendant
Anna Holland
Defendant
Joe Howlett
Defendant
Eric Hoyland
Defendant
Reuben James
Defendant
Ruth Jarman
Defendant
Stephen Jarvis
Defendant
Samuel Johnson
Defendant
Inez Jones
Defendant
Charlotte Kirin
Defendant
Jerrard Mark Latimer
Defendant
Charles Laurie
Defendant
Peter Lay
Defendant
Victoria Lindsell
Defendant
El Litten
Defendant
David Mann
Defendant
Diana Martin
Defendant
Larch Maxey
Defendant
Elidh McFadden
Defendant
Louis McKechnie
Defendant
Julia Mercer
Defendant
Craig Miller
Defendant
Simon Milner-Edwards
Defendant
Barry Mitchell
Defendant
Darcy Mitchell
Defendant
Eric Moore
Defendant
Peter Morgan
Defendant
Richard Morgan
Defendant
Orla Murphy
Defendant
Joanne Murphy
Defendant
Gilbert Murray
Defendant
Christian Murray-Leslie
Defendant
Rajan Naidu
Defendant
Chloe Naldrett
Defendant
David Nixon
Defendant
Theresa Norton
Defendant
Ryan O Toole
Defendant
George Oakenfold
Defendant
Nicolas Onlay
Defendant
Edward Osbourne
Defendant
Richard Painter
Defendant
David Powter
Defendant
Stephanie Pride
Defendant
Simon Reding
Defendant
Margaret Reid
Defendant
Catherine Rennie-Nash
Defendant
Isabel Rock
Defendant
Caterine Scothorne
Defendant
Gregory Sculthorpe
Defendant
Vivienne Shah
Defendant
Sheila Shatford
Defendant
Daniel Shaw
Defendant
Paul Sheeky
Defendant
Susan Sidey
Defendant
Joshua Smith
Defendant
Kai Springorum
Defendant
Hannah Torrance Bright
Defendant
Jane Touil
Defendant
Sarah Webb
Defendant
Ian Webb
Defendant
William White
Defendant
Lucia Whittaker-De-Abreu
Defendant
Edred Whittingham
Defendant
Caren Wilden
Defendant
Meredith Williams
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Review / First Annual Review of Final Injunction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there has been any material factual or legal change warranting amendment or discharge of the injunction and power of arrest
- 2 Whether service requirements for persons unknown defendants have been met
- 3 Whether legal developments require amendment to the order, including permission for contempt applications
Ratio Decidendi
There have been no material factual or legal changes since the injunction and power of arrest were granted. The risk of protest and direct action remains real and imminent. The alternative service steps taken by the Council are approved as good service. There is no basis to amend or discharge the injunction or power of arrest, nor to require permission before contempt proceedings. The injunction and power of arrest are to continue, with a further review in 12 months.
Court Disposition
Injunction and power of arrest continued; no amendment or discharge ordered.
Orders
- Continuation of the existing injunction and power of arrest until next annual review.
- Approval of alternative service steps taken as good service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment