Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Anor.

The Claimant is a statutory corporation created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It is both the highway authority and the traffic authority for the GLA Roads. More detail of the Claimant’s statutory functions, powers and duties in relation to the GLA Roads and the provisions under which it brings these proceedings are set out in Freedman J’s judgment in TfL v JSO at §§8 and 9.

The Claimant makes this claim pursuant to its duties under section 130 Highways Act 1980 (power to take legal proceedings as part of performing the duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoy the highway) and on the basis that the conduct of the Defendants in participating in the IB protests constitutes (i) trespass, (ii) private nuisance and/or (iii) public nuisance.

The claim forms identify, at Annex 1, the 139 Named Defendants, each individually numbered from 1 to 139. The Named Defendants have all participated at IB protests (M25 or IB roads) or JSO protests.

Mr Ameen has explained in detail the steps taken to serve the Named Defendants with all relevant court documents in the course of the proceedings, following the making of earlier orders for alternative service. As regards this trial, the Named Defendants were sent, by first class post, the notice of hearing for this trial on 10 January 2023. It was also emailed to IB on 10 January 2023 and was put up on the TfL and Greater London Authority websites. In a further witness statement dated 2 April 2023, Mr Ameen has explained how all the written materials relevant to this trial were sent to the Named Defendants, including the evidence, draft final orders and skeleton argument, on dates between 28 February 2023 and 16 March 2023.

No defendant has acknowledged service or filed a defence. Up until the final trial, no defendant had attended any hearing in these claims since 12 November 2021; and no defendant has served any evidence or skeleton argument for this trial. However, at or leading up to this trial, four Named Defendants have made representations.

First, Matthew Tulley, Named Defendant 65, in advance of the hearing, offered an undertaking to the Court. In an email to Mr Ameen, he asserted that he has not breached the existing injunctions and that he has no intention of doing so. Secondly, Mr David Rinaldi, Named Defendant 135 both wrote to the Claimant and appeared on the first morning of the hearing. Thirdly, Mr Barry Mitchell, Named Defendant 9, also attended court on the first morning of the hearing. Each of these three Named Defendants has offered an undertaking in terms similar to the terms of the final injunction which I have decided to grant. Accordingly, whilst each remains a party to the claims, the final injunction is not made as against them and their names are now excluded from Annex 1 to the final injunction.

A fourth defendant, James Bradbury (Named Defendant 39), following notification on 10 January 2023, wrote to the Claimant on 16 January 2023, claiming that he had not blocked any TfL infrastructure and asking for clarification of the case against him. Following a rather general reply from the Claimant, he wrote again on 10 February 2023 maintaining his position and asking why his name had been added to the injunction. Following that email, the Claimant served all the trial materials on Mr Bradbury at his home address, which sets out the case against him both generally and the specific evidence against him individually. In this regard, and in response to my inquiry since the date of the hearing, Mr Ameen has provided a further witness statement dated 28 April 2023, explaining that the initial trial materials were sent to Mr Bradbury twice, by first class post on 28 February 2023 and by an email from him personally to Mr Bradbury sent on 8 March 2023 (responding in fact to Mr Bradbury’s email of 16 January 2023). Mr Bradbury did not reply to that email. On 15 March 2023 further trial materials were sent by post to Mr Bradbury. He has not responded to any of those materials sent to him. Absent any such response, I am satisfied that the final injunction is properly made against Mr Bradbury.

However, in relation to six Named Defendants, the Claimant seeks permission to discontinue the proceedings pursuant to CPR 38.2(2)(a)(i). In the case of five of those Defendants, the Claimant has not been able to effect service of documents upon them, due to the lack of a correct, or any, address for service. In addition, one further Defendant has, unfortunately, since died. I therefore grant permission to the Claimants to file a Notice of Discontinuance pursuant to CPR 38.3(1)(a) in respect of Named Defendants 8, 34, 91, 102, 108 and 112 and an order under CPR 6.28 dispensing with service of the Notice of Discontinuance on these six Named Defendants. I will order that the discontinuance of the proceedings against them will take effect on the date of the order of the Court; their names are thus excluded from Annex 1 to the final injunction. I will also order that these six Named Defendants will be entitled to their costs (if any).

In these circumstances, excluding these six Named Defendants and the two Named Defendants who appeared at the hearing, I was satisfied that it was appropriate to proceed to hear the trial in the absence of the remaining 131 Named Defendants, pursuant to CPR 39.3(1).

It further follows that the final injunction order is made against 129 Named Defendants as set out in Annex 1 to the order which I will make.

Insulate Britain (IB) is an environmental activist group which takes direct protest action in furtherance of two demands: first, that the UK government immediately promises to fully fund and take responsibility for the insulation of all social housing in Britain by 2025; and secondly that the UK government immediately promises to produce within four months a legally binding national plan to fully fund and take responsibility for the full low-energy and low-carbon whole-house retrofit, with no externalised costs, of all homes in Britain by 2030 as part of a just transition to full decarbonisation of all parts of society and the economy. IB says doing so will provide warmer homes and contribute to reducing the UK’s carbon emissions.

The Named Defendants are those who have been engaging in deliberately highly disruptive protests under the banner “Insulate Britain”. All protests are peaceful. IB has repeatedly made un-retracted statements that its protests will continue until his demands are met.

There are two other similar groups: Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil (JSO). Extinction Rebellion describes itself as an international movement that uses non-violent civil disobedience in an attempt to halt mass extinction and minimise the risk of social collapse through, inter alia, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025. Extinction Rebellion has engaged in deliberately disruptive protests on, inter alia, public highways. However on 31 December 2022 it announced that it would temporarily cease disruptive protests. IB was founded by six members of Extinction Rebellion.

JSO is a group, formed in December 2021, which has been demanding that the government halt all future licensing consents for the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels in the United Kingdom. There is an intersection between the groups Insulate Britain, JSO and Extinction Rebellion. In February 2022 IB joined the JSO coalition, although IB and JSO are not in formal coalition with each other. JSO has also repeatedly said that it will continue its deliberately disruptive protests until its demands are met. More detail about JSO is set out at §§19 to 21, and 23 to 26 of Freedman J’s judgment in TfL v JSO.

Since September 2021, the courts have granted a number of other injunctions, similar in form to the interim injunctions granted in this case, against members and supporters of those organisations. These were obtained at the behest of other bodies, including National Highways Limited (“NHL”) and HS2 Ltd. Many of the same named defendants appear in a number of the cases.

Mr Ameen refers to a substantial number of IB protests. IB protests started in about September 2021. The last protest on the road solely under the IB banner was on 4 November 2021. Individual acts of IB protest took place up until April 2022. The last IB protest on the roads, as part of the JSO coalition, but retaining the IB identity took place on 12 October 2022. Mr Ameen’s evidence is that the interim injunctions had been effective in reducing and/or pausing IB protests.

Despite this, in early 2023 IB made a public statement that it would continue with its protests, and despite the announcement from Extinction Rebellion. An article in The Guardian dated January 2023 reported as follows:

Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have doubled down on their commitment to disruptive climate “civil resistance” after Extinction Rebellion announced new tactics prioritising “relationships over roadblocks”.

Insulate Britain said its supporters remained prepared to go to prison. “Insulate Britain supporters remain committed to civil resistance as the only appropriate and effective response to the reality of our situation in 2023,” its statement said.

“In the UK right now, nurses, ambulance drivers and railway workers are on strike because they understand that public disruption is vital to demand changes that governments are not willing or are too scared to address.”

As of 30 March 2022, 174 people had been arrested, 857 times, during IB protests on public highways. Mr Ameen’s evidence is that the IB and JSO protests have been very dangerous and disruptive, creating an immediate threat to life, putting at risk the lives of those protesting, those driving on the roads and those policing the protests. At times, the protests have also caused a risk of violence between protesters and ordinary users of the highways; in some cases force has been used to remove protesters from the highway. He gives examples of particular such incidents.

JSO protests started in March or April 2022. These protests have, until recently, largely involved protesters blocking highways with their physical presence, normally either by sitting down or gluing themselves to the road surface. There were protests daily by JSO between 1 October and 31 October 2022. During that period, there were, on a daily basis, large scale protests at key areas of largely the central London road system. On many occasions, JSO have been reported as saying that they will not cease their protests until their demands are met and that they will not be discouraged from doing so by injunctions from the court. The protests on roads in London have continued, even after interim injunctions were made and served. More detail of these JSO protests is set out at §§27 and 28 of Freedman J’s judgment in TfL v JSO. Since November 2022 there have been further JSO protests, including a new tactic of “slow marches”, as explained by §13 of Cavanagh J’s judgment.

In addition to the current proceedings, in October 2022 the Claimant commenced proceedings in respect of JSO protests, TfL v JSO, and was granted an urgent without notice interim injunction against certain named defendants and persons unknown in connection with protests which involved JSO protesters sitting down in and blocking GLA Roads. This injunction was continued, on notice, on 31 October 2022 by Freedman J and again by Cavanagh J on 24 February 2023, who at the same time directed an expedited final trial and made an order under CPR 31.22. These are the judgments referred to at paragraph 4 above.

There is a large overlap between the defendants named in the TfL v JSO injunctions and the Defendants in this case. Of the 138 Named Defendants in this case, 65 are also named defendants in the TfL v JSO claim. As regards those 65 individuals the injunctions sought in this case and those granted (and now applied for) in TfL v JSO have precisely the same effect, since, in their case, the prohibition is not limited by reference to the banner under which any protest might take place. It follows that the final injunction against the Named Defendants in this case will also cover their participation in any future JSO protests on the IB Roads.

NHL has also obtained injunctions in respect of major parts of The Strategic Road Network, namely the M25 and feeder roads on to the M25. NHL initially obtained interim injunctions, and has now obtained a final anticipatory injunction against IB protesters – in part from Bennathan J on 9 May 2022 and then more extensively from the Court of Appeal recently on 14 March 2023. The judgments in this case are referred to in paragraph 4 above. Since autumn of 2022, NHL also has an ongoing claim against JSO protesters protecting structures on the M25 such as overhead gantries. On 21 November 2022 Soole J granted an interim injunction in respect of such JSO protests.

I consider the position of the Named Defendants and Persons Unknown in turn. The issues that fall for consideration are as follows

The grant of a final injunction against the Named Defendants

In the present case, the Claimant’s case is that its rights are or will be infringed by the Defendants committing one or more of the torts of trespass, public nuisance and private nuisance. The relevant principles applicable to each of these torts, particularly in the context of protests on the highway, are set out by Bennathan J in NHL v IB at §§28 to 31. See also High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB) (“HS2”) at §§74, 77-79, 84-90.

Trespass to land is the commission of an intentional act which results in the immediate and direct entry onto land in the possession of another without justification. If land is subject to a public right of way or similar, a person who unlawfully uses the land for any purpose other than that of exercising the right to which it is subject is a trespasser. However the public have a right of reasonable use of the highway which may include protest. A protest involving obstructing the highway may be lawful by reason of Articles 10 and11 ECHR.

Private nuisance is any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonably interference with a claimant’s land or his use or enjoyment of that land. In the case of an easement, such as a right of way, there must be a substantial interference with the enjoyment of it.

A public nuisance is one which inflicts damage, injury, or inconvenience on all the King’s subjects or on all members of a class who come within the sphere or neighbourhood of its operation (HS2 at §84). The position in relation to an obstruction of the highway for the purposes of public nuisance is stated in Halsbury’s Laws Vol 55 (2019) at §354: (a) a nuisance with reference to a highway has been defined as ‘any wrongful act or omission upon or near a highway, whereby the public are prevented from freely, safely and conveniently passing along it’; (b) whether an obstruction amounts to a nuisance is a question of fact; (c) an obstruction is caused where the highway is rendered impassable or more difficult to pass along by reason of some physical obstacle; but an obstruction may be so inappreciable or so temporary as not to amount to a nuisance; (d) generally, it is a nuisance to interfere with any part of the highway; and (e) it is not a defence to show that, although the act complained of is a nuisance with regard to the highway, it is in other respects beneficial to the public.

The Claimant seeks a final anticipatory (also referred to as a precautionary or quia timet) prohibitory injunction against the Named Defendants. To grant such an order the Court must be satisfied that (1) there is a strong probability that that the defendants will imminently act to infringe the claimant’s rights and (2) the ensuing harm would be so grave and irreparable that damages would be an inadequate remedy: see Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch) at §31(3)-(4). There is no requirement for the Claimant to prove that its rights have already been infringed; but only that there is a real and imminent risk that they will be infringed: NHL v IB (CA) at §§37-39 and 19. The question here therefore is whether there is a real and imminent risk that one or more of the three torts will be committed by the Defendants.

A protest which obstructs the highway may be lawful by reason of Articles 10 and 11 ECHR. (Articles 10 and 11 ECHR are set out at §34 of Freedman J’s judgment in TfL v JSO). If so, this provides a defence to the alleged torts of trespass (and private and public nuisance). The relevant principles are derived from DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23 approving City of London Corp v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160 at §§38-44. In summary, the issues which arise under Articles 10 and 11 require consideration of the following five questions:

Question (5) is the requirement of “proportionality” – a fact-specific inquiry which requires evaluation of the circumstances in the individual case. Question (5) in turn requires consideration of four sub-questions as follows:

I turn to apply these legal principles to the facts of this case.

On the evidence before me I am satisfied that, subject to the considerations arising under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, the conduct, both in the past and threatened in the future, of the Defendants in protesting on the IB Roads by deliberately blocking and obstructing those roads, prima facie constitutes the torts of trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance. As to trespass, the protesters directly enter on to land in the possession of the Claimant and use the land for a purpose other than exercising a public right of way; whether they are justifiably exercising a right to protest turns upon the application of Articles 10 and 11. Secondly, as to private nuisance the protests causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the enjoyment and exercise of the rights of way of other road users. Thirdly, as to public nuisance, as a result of the protests, the public are prevented from freely, safely and conveniently passing along the IB Roads (the highway); the protests deliberately cause a physical obstacle on the IB Roads rendering them impassable or more difficult to pass along. I consider in paragraphs 44 and 45 below, whether, nevertheless, the protests are lawful under Articles 10 and 11.

First, I am satisfied that, on the facts here, that there is a real and imminent risk of further protests (on the part of the Defendants) and that, subject to the Article 10 and 11 issues, those protests will infringe the Claimant’s rights. The evidence of Mr Ameen demonstrates that the Named Defendants have repeatedly, deliberately and over a long period carried out those protests in order to cause the maximum disruption to the Claimants and the public. IB has repeatedly stated that they will continue to protest and that they will not be discouraged by injunctions. Further the fact that, apart from those Defendants referred to in paragraphs 14 and 15 above, none of the Named Defendants has sought to engage with the proceedings suggests that there is no arguable defence to the Claimant’s claim including its claim for a final anticipatory injunction; see NHL v IB (CA) at §§40 and 41. The final injunction sought in relation to the Named Defendants is not limited to protesting under the IB banner; it applies to them individually protesting under whatever banner they choose.

I have considered whether the fact that the last protest solely under the IB banner took place in November 2021 (and last joint protest in October 2022) affects my assessment of whether there is a real and imminent risk of further future IB protests on the IB Roads, such that an anticipatory injunction is not justified. I have concluded that nevertheless there is such a real and imminent risk. First, IB itself (and expressly in contrast to the position of Extinction Rebellion) continues to state that it will continue its protests and has so stated recently (see paragraph 25 above). Secondly, I accept that the level of IB protests since November 2021 is likely to have been affected by a combination of the effect of the interim injunctions granted in this case and colder weather in the winter months. It follows that in the summer months the prospect of protest activity is likely to increase. Moreover if no final injunction were to be granted, then the chilling effect of the court injunctions to date would be removed, increasing the risk of the resumption of protests. Thirdly, if no final injunction were to be granted in respect of protests under the IB banner, then, it might well be that the recent switch from protests under the IB banner to protests under the JSO banner would be reversed, not least because of the more recent imposition of interim injunctions in the TfL v JSO case. (I note that in NHL v IB both Bennathan J and CA granted injunctions “against IB”, despite the fact that, by that time, the transition from IB to JSO had occurred). Finally, in the case of the Named Defendants, since the final injunction will apply to them, regardless of the banner under which they protest, I take account of the fact that JSO protests have been continuing and of JSO’s recent statements of intent. This is particularly relevant in the case of the 65 Named Defendants who are also defendants in the TfL v JSO case.

Secondly, I am satisfied and find that the ensuing harm from further protests at IB Roads will be grave and irreparable. As demonstrated by the evidence relating to past protests, the deliberate blocking of roads so that vehicles of all types cannot pass would cause serious disruption to many people, risk to life and of violence, economic harm, nuisance and the diversion of public resources. Damages would be an inadequate remedy for such harm, in the light of the matters to which I have referred; first, because much of it will be unquantifiable; secondly because the Claimant could not recover for losses sustained by others; and thirdly, the Defendants would be unlikely to be able to pay such damages as might be quantifiable.

In the present case the answers to the first four questions set out in paragraph 37 above are as follows:

Turning then to question (5) - whether the interference is “necessary in a democratic society” - and each of the four sub-questions in paragraph 38 above, I find as follows:

In these circumstances I am satisfied that it is just and convenient for a final injunction to be made against the Named Defendants.

The position of Persons Unknown, Alternative Service and Third Party Disclosure

I turn to consider whether the final injunction should also be granted against “persons unknown”. On the present case, the “persons unknown” are identified specifically through an express link to Insulate Britain. The final injunction applies only to a “person unknown” who is protesting “on behalf of, in association with, under the instruction or direction of, or using the name of, Insulate Britain”. (The position of Named Defendants is different in this regard: see paragraph 41 above). As explained in paragraph 31(2) above, this issue and the issues of alternative service (and third party disclosure) are interrelated to some extent.

In principle, “persons unknown” include both anonymous defendants who are identifiable at the time the proceedings commence, but whose names are unknown and also what have been referred to as “newcomers”, that is to say people who at the relevant time of the issue of proceedings and at the time of the grant of the injunction are unknown and unidentified, but who in the future will join the protest and as a result with then fall within the description of the "persons unknown".

As regards the making of a final injunctive order against “newcomer” persons unknown, the relevant principles are contained in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2022] EWCA Civ 13 [2022] 2 WLR 946 (“Barking and Dagenham”) at §§75,77, 79-89, 91, 107-108, 117. The principles can be summarised as follows:

In the earlier case of Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 303 at §82, the Court of Appeal set out seven guidelines for the grant of interim injunctions against persons unknown. These are set out at §84 of Freedman J’s judgment in TfL v JSO and were applied to the facts in that case at §§85 to 91. Subject to necessary modifications and in so far as applicable, it appears that these guidelines apply also to the grant of a final injunction against persons unknown: see Barking and Dagenham at §89. I am satisfied that each of the seven guidelines are met in this case. Whilst he was considering interim relief in respect of JSO protests, in my judgment the analysis and reasoning of Freedman J at §§85 to 91 applies with equal force to persons unknown protesting under the IB banner. Taking each in turn:

For these reasons I am satisfied that it is just and convenient to grant the final injunction against the Persons Unknown.

In order to protect the public and the Claimant’s rights, and given the extent and nature of the Defendants’ disruptive protests and IB repeated statements that they will not stop protesting until their demands are met, the final injunction will last for a period of 5 years. In addition provision is made for a yearly review by the Court for supervisory purposes. A review provision was included in the final injunctions made by Bennathan J and the Court of Appeal in NHL v IB. This will also enable the Court to consider the implications, if any, of the Supreme Court judgment in the Barking and Dagenham case. In any event, the final injunction will provide for liberty for any Defendant (Named or Person Unknown) to apply to vary or discharge the injunction at any time.

The Claimant seeks an order for alternative service, similar to that contained in the existing interim injunctions (and in many other NHL and TfL cases). It also sought an order for third party disclosure, again similar to that contained in the interim injunctions. In the course of the hearing, it withdrew that application for reasons I explain below.

The alternative service to be permitted is service of all documents by email to IB itself coupled with individual posting through the letterbox, or affixing to the front door, a package, with a notice in prominent writing. In principle, the underlying purpose of the provision for alternative service is to provide a method of ensuring that those who might breach its terms are made aware of the order’s existence: see NHL v IB (Bennathan J) at §50 and TfL v JSO (Cavanagh J) at §32. I am satisfied that, for the reasons set out in Mr Ameen’s witness statement and by Cavanagh J at §32, it is appropriate to permit alternative service in the terms proposed in the draft final injunction

In my judgment, there might appear to be a tension between the rationale for the provision for alternative service and the analysis in Barking and Dagenham in relation to persons unknown. On the one hand, it is said that alternative service is required so as to make a person aware of the proceedings and the injunction; on the other hand, Barking and Dagenham establishes that merely knowingly acting in breach of the injunction is sufficient to render a person party to the proceedings and automatically in breach and that formal service itself is not necessary.

I note that in the orders made in NHL v IB by both Bennathan J and the Court of Appeal there was express provision that persons who had not been served would not be bound by the terms of the injunction (and the fact that the order had been sent to the relevant organisation’s website or otherwise publicised did not constitute service). Bennathan J explained at §52 that the effect of that provision was that anyone arrested at a protest could be served and risked imprisonment if they thereafter breached the terms of the injunction. The making of such a provision however seems to me to be inconsistent with the decision in Barking and Dagenham that merely knowingly acting in breach of the injunction is sufficient to render a person party to the proceedings and that service is not required to make such a person bound or in breach. This was picked up by Cavanagh J in TfL v JSO at §52 where he pointed out that (1) given the wide media coverage and publicity, it was “vanishingly unlikely” that anyone minded to take part in a protest was unaware that injunctions had been granted by the courts; (2) as a result it was not necessary to include an order in the terms made by Bennathan J; and (3) he noted TfL’s stated intention of not commencing committal proceedings against a person unknown unless that person had previously been arrested and then served with the order.

In the present case Mr Fraser-Urquhart KC has indicated that the Claimant will continue to adopt this “two strike” practice: it would not seek to commit a person unknown who attends a prohibited protest (even with knowledge of the injunction) first time round, but would only do so if that person is then served with the injunction and attends a second prohibited protest. By that time, such a person would no longer be a Person Unknown.

In the light of this indication, I then questioned the purpose of the inclusion of Persons Unknown in the final injunction. Mr Fraser-Urquhart accepted that the Claimant’s intended practice could be seen to dilute the deterrent effect of the Persons Unknown element of the final injunction. He nevertheless submitted that its inclusion would increase the preventative effectiveness of the final injunction by way of wider publicity; and further that an injunction limited only to Named Defendants would substantially weaken that wider deterrent effect. I accept these contentions. There is a distinction between, on the one hand, the making a final injunction against a newcomer and, on the other, the consequences of such a final injunction – i.e. whether a person unknown becomes a party and is subject to, and in breach of, the injunction, which depends on knowingly acting contrary to the terms of the final injunction. Barking and Dagenham is not authority for the proposition that the court can only grant a final injunction against a newcomer person unknown where the Court can be sure that the person unknown acting in breach of its terms in the future will know that he is acting in breach.

As a result, I do not consider that the Claimant’s intended practice undermines the appropriateness of including Persons Unknown in the final injunction nor of making orders for alternative service.

One final point in this regard: since mere knowledge of the injunction on the part of a person unknown is sufficient to render him potentially bound by its terms, and in order to increase the preventative purpose of the injunction, I took the view that the Claimant should bolster the steps it takes to publicise more widely the making of the final injunction. As a result the Claimant has now included at paragraph 7b of the draft final injunction additional provisions: to email a copy of the order not only to IB, but also to JSO, and other environmental protest groups; to post on the Claimant’s twitter feed; to notify the Press Association and to place a notice in the London Gazette. In this way the likelihood of someone minded to take part in protests being unaware of the Court’s order will be further diminished.

To date, in many cases, claimants have sought and obtained an order for third party disclosure under CPR 31.17 directing the police to disclose to the claimant details of those who have been arrested at protests. Such orders were made in the interim injunctions in the present case, providing, first, for disclosure of the name and address of any person arrested at an IB protest on the IB Roads and, secondly, for all arrest notes and footage relating to any breach or potential breach of the injunction or any predecessor injunctions. (The former provision concerned persons unknown and the latter was directed to support possible contempt proceedings against Named Defendants). Moreover, and significantly, those injunctions provided for those disclosure duties to be “continuing” duties, for as long as the injunction remained in force. Similar orders have been made in the NHL v IB and TfL v JSO cases.

In the present case, the Claimant sought the inclusion in the final injunction of a third party disclosure order in the same terms. In advance of the hearing, I raised with the Claimant questions in relation to this issue, and in particular as to the Court’s jurisdiction to make an order in the terms sought (under CPR 31.17, s.34 Senior Court Act 1981 or otherwise), including whether there is power to order disclosure of documents/information which are/is not yet in existence, but which may only come into existence in the future (and if so, whether it should) – in other words, in relation to protests which have not yet happened. Subsequently, in the course of argument, Mr Fraser-Urquhart informed the Court that the Claimant did not pursue the application for third party disclosure order. It did not require any information about protests which had already taken place. He indicated that the Claimant might come back to the Court and seek a disclosure order in the event that a further protest had occurred. I say no more about this issue, save to say that in my judgment, if it arises for consideration again, the Court would greatly be assisted by detailed submissions for and against the making of such an order.

In the light of my conclusions at paragraphs 46, 51 and 54 above, there will be judgment for the Claimant for a final injunction in the terms of the draft order submitted.