On the Twelfth day of Christmas 2022...
…Natalie Hayes-Green from Irwin Mitchell’s Real Estate Disputes team concludes our series of articles with a look at what is thought to be one of the largest injunctions granted against protestors.
On 20 September 2022, an interim injunction was granted to High Speed Two Limited (“HS2”) and the Secretary of State for Transport against four categories of ‘persons unknown’ and 59 named Defendants to tackle environmental protestors.
Background
The Claimants applied for injunctive relief against unnamed defendants and named defendants to restrain what they contended were unlawful protests against the building of HS2. The Claimants argued that those protesting had committed trespass and nuisance, put at risk protestors’ lives and those of others (including HS2’s contractors), caused disruption, delay and nuisance to works on HS2’s land.
In witness evidence, Mr Jordan, HS2’s Interim Quality and Assurance Director and former Chief Security and Resilience Officer reported that as well as trespassing, the protestors had damaged fencing and damaged equipment; climbed and occupied trees on trespassed land; climbed onto vehicles (aka, 'surfing'); climbed under vehicles; climbed onto equipment, e.g., cranes; used lock-on devices; committed theft, damaged property and abused staff. He further reported that the protestors had carried out ecological and environmental damage, such as spiking trees to obstruct the felling of them; waste and fly tipping and tunnelling.
Injunction ordered
It is thought to be one of the largest injunctions granted against protestors and intended to stop protestors from trespassing, deliberately obstructing or preventing vehicles from entering or exiting HS2’s land and interfering with any fences or gates on HS2’s land. The injunction spans the length of the highspeed line from London to Crewe.
Mr Justice Julian Knowles, said the injunction struck "a fair balance between the rights of the individual protestors and the general right and interests of HS2 and others who are being affected by the protests, including the national economy. The protests are said to have cost an estimated £122million.
Mr Justice Knowles said he was "satisfied that there has been significant violence, criminality and sometimes risk to the life of the activists, HS2 staff and contractors." He added that, while he had "anxiously considered the geographical extent of the injunction along the whole of the HS2 route", he had decided that "such an extensive injunction is appropriate." He further stated that, "I am satisfied that the trespass and nuisance will continue, unless restrained, and that the risk is both real and imminent."
In the event that any protestors breached the injunction this would be a contempt of court and could lead to a jail sentence.
Commentary
This latest case is another case whereby injunctive relief has been sought by Claimants against protestors and has been successful. This case will no doubt provide some security to potential Claimants that the Court will consider unlawful protestors against both individuals and ‘persons unknown’ in the event that there is both an imminent and real risk of trespass and nuisance continuing unless restrained.
This case has demonstrated that the Court is willing to grant injunctions which span over a very large geographical area providing that the Claimant is able to evidence that this type of protection is required.
