Factual and Procedural Background
The Claimants obtained an interim injunction order on 10 November 2021, initially granted against named Defendants and categories of "Persons Unknown". Since then, the litigation has progressed with various applications including the addition of new parties and amendments to the categories of "Persons Unknown". The Defendants include several groups, some legally represented and others unrepresented, with some self-representing and others seeking representation. The Claimants have applied to vary the original injunction to add further prohibitions and redefine the Exclusion Zone around the Wyton Site. A hearing was held to consider this variation application, alongside a related application to adjourn the hearing to allow unrepresented Defendants to obtain pro bono legal representation. Additionally, the Claimants sought urgent ex parte relief based on recent incidents involving trespass and break-ins at the Wyton Site over a weekend, including the use of drones and removal of animals from the facility.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should grant the Claimants' application to vary the original interim injunction order by adding new prohibitions, redefining the Exclusion Zone, and including further categories of "Protected Persons".
- Whether the hearing of the variation application should be adjourned to permit unrepresented Defendants to secure pro bono legal representation.
- Whether the court should grant urgent ex parte relief to impose further restrictions, including an extended Exclusion Zone around the Wyton Site perimeter and prohibiting drone flights below a certain altitude, pending the adjourned hearing.
- The legal basis and proportionality of imposing such variations, particularly regarding freedom of expression and protest rights.
- The jurisdictional basis for granting injunctions against named Defendants absent pleaded claims related to drone usage.
Arguments of the Parties
Claimants' Arguments
- Seek to vary the injunction to prohibit specific conduct including obscuring vehicle drivers' vision, obstructing traffic, installing surveillance equipment, trespassing on Protected Persons' premises, photographing staff without permission, and coercing Protected Persons.
- Propose expanding the definition of Protected Persons to include staff, employees, suppliers, and directors associated with the Wyton and Hull sites.
- Request redefinition of the Exclusion Zone to a 20-metre perimeter around the Wyton Site and extending across the access road.
- Argue for urgent ex parte relief based on recent serious breaches involving trespass, break-ins, drone usage, and removal of animals, asserting these justify immediate additional restrictions.
- Submit that the Exclusion Zone would deter future breaches by making approaches more visible to security personnel.
- Contend that drone flights have been used to gather intelligence facilitating breaches and thus should be prohibited below 150 metres.
- Argue that injunctions can be granted against named Defendants without specific evidence of drone-related wrongdoing, relying on the court’s power to grant interim relief to make orders effective or aid justice administration.
Defendants' Arguments
- The court did not record detailed Defendants’ arguments in this opinion; however, it noted that many Defendants are unrepresented and some have sought pro bono legal representation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Broad Idea International Limited v Convoy Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24 |
Limited circumstances permitting interim injunctions without underlying substantive claim. |
The court acknowledged the narrow scope of this principle and found no clear justification to grant relief outside established causes of action in the present case. |
| American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd (No.1) [1975] AC 396 |
The established test for granting interim injunctions: serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages, balance of convenience. |
The court applied this test, emphasizing the need for a serious issue linked to an arguable civil claim before granting injunctions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the recent unlawful incidents at the Wyton Site, including trespass, break-ins, and drone usage, but found that these matters are being investigated by the police and may lead to criminal prosecution. There was no evidence implicating named Defendants in the recent incidents, with a new group identified as responsible.
The court was not persuaded that extending the Exclusion Zone around the entire perimeter would effectively prevent future breaches, noting that those intent on unlawful entry are unlikely to be deterred by civil injunctions. The existing injunction already prohibits trespass at the site.
Regarding drones, the court found the evidence speculative and insufficient to show that drone flights were used to gather intelligence facilitating breaches. The photographs and footage presented appeared to serve protest purposes rather than intelligence gathering. The court emphasized the necessity of proportionality and necessity in restricting rights related to freedom of expression and protest.
The court expressed concern about granting ex parte relief that would significantly restrict lawful protest activities, such as drone photography, without full inter partes consideration. It highlighted the importance of balancing competing interests and protecting civil liberties.
The court also noted procedural fairness concerns, emphasizing that injunctions against named Defendants require properly pleaded claims specifying alleged wrongdoing. The current pleadings did not include drone-related claims against named Defendants, and it would be unfair to broaden allegations without proper notice.
Overall, the court concluded that the variation application and any requested additional relief are better considered at a full hearing with all parties represented, scheduled for 21-22 July 2022, allowing proper argument and evidence presentation.
Holding and Implications
The court REFUSED TO GRANT the Claimants' application for immediate variation of the interim injunction order and declined to make the urgent ex parte relief sought.
The hearing of the variation application was adjourned to 21-22 July 2022 to allow unrepresented Defendants to obtain pro bono legal representation and to enable full inter partes consideration of the issues. The Claimants may renew their applications at that hearing.
This decision maintains the status quo pending the substantive hearing and reinforces the court’s commitment to procedural fairness, proportionality, and protecting rights of freedom of expression and protest. No new precedent was established; the ruling adheres to established principles governing interim injunctions and civil procedure.