Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited v Kylie Davies & Ors

The Claimant is a company which owns a quarry at Craig yr Hesg, Berw Road, Pontypridd, Wales CF37 3NG (the Quarry). The Defendants are protesters who are alleged to have breached High Court injunctions prohibiting persons unknown from blocking access to and egress from the Quarry and trespassing on the Quarry.

I take into account that the Defendants are litigants in person. They have been offered the right to apply for legal aid and to have lawyers represent them and have chosen not to be represented. As a result, my duty is to ensure any defence which they raise (or do not raise but emerges from the evidence) is carefully considered by me. Counsel’s duty is to his client and also to assist the Court with the law and procedure including that relating to any defences so raised and generally.

For the hearing I was provided with two hard copy lever arch files by the Claimant, two skeleton arguments from the Claimant and an email from the 4^th Defendant (who I shall refer to as DV) with attachments. During the hearing I was provided with “KD1” a notice of common law eviction and “DJJ1” a photo of a bailiff. Since the hearing I have read the witness statement of Mr Radcliffe sworn on 30.5.2025 overnight, (it was on the court Cefile but not in the hearing bundle). DV sent a digital bundle containing a case report and a medical certificate overnight between day 1 and day 2.

In March 2024, after planning permission had been granted by the Welsh Government for an extension to the Quarry works, a quite large group of protesters including DV trespassed on the Quarry and set up a camp thereby excluding the Claimant’s staff from carrying out their work. The Claimant did not take legal advice but instead went to Able Investigations (Able), a bailiff company in Bristol, whom they contracted to remove the protesters. Able produced a one page eviction warning notice and, on 26.3.2024, with police presence at the Quarry, the Claimant served the notice on the protesters and about half an hour later moved them off the Quarry. Some physical force was used. Two months later the Claimant applied for and obtained an interim injunction and thereafter obtained two High Court injunctions, one made by HHJ Harrison on dated 6.5.2024 (the 2024 Order) and the next made by Deputy High Court Judge Elizabeth O’Neill on 5.6.2025 (the 2025 Order), prohibiting unknown persons (UPs) from blocking access to and egress from their Quarry and from trespassing on Quarry land. The Claimant now asserts that the named Defendants breached those injunctions on 27.5.2025 and 18.6.2025. As a result, on 3.7.2025 the Claimant made applications against the named Defendants for their committal for contempt. Those applications were on the wrong forms, so they were reissued on 4.9.2025 on the correct forms. Having heard the evidence and submissions and read the bundles I indicated my decisions on each of the issues (1) – (3) set out below and adjourned the hearing for more evidence and for consideration of sanctions at a later date. I gave very brief reasons for the decisions and stated that my full reasoning would be provided later in a reserved judgment. This is my full reasoning.

I now consider that there are four issues in these applications at this stage. All arose from the evidence but only three were addressed at the hearing and one went unrecognised until I started writing this reserved judgment. The three expressly addressed at the hearing were:

No issue was taken over service of the contempt applications and all Defendants appeared at the first directions hearing made after the applications were issued.

Kylie Davies (KD). KD was informed in the N600 and verbally at the start of the hearing that she did not have to say anything but that I could draw an adverse inference if she said nothing. The Claimant’s N600, dated 4.9.2025, asserted that the 2025 Order was served on KD: (1) on 5th and 6th June 2025 by the four permitted alternative service methods in that Order, and (2) by personal service on 18.6.2025 at around 10.35 am at the Quarry entrance during the protest. As to breach, the Claimant asserted that on 18.6.2025, between 06.45 am (later changed to 09.25 am) and 12.20 pm, KD blocked vehicles from going in and out of the Quarry and trespassed on the Quarry. KD put in no evidence and made no communications with the Claimant or the Court before the final hearing, despite the directions orders set out below, but did attend on all days on time and, when asked, accepted that she was present on 18.6.2025. She denied being properly served and denied knowledge of the 2025 Order and the prohibitions therein. Once those issues were determined by my decisions set out and explained below KD admitted intentionally carrying out the acts which were the breaches, as alleged.

Darren John Jones (DJJ). DJJ was informed in the N600 and verbally at the start of the hearing that he did not have to say anything but that I could draw an adverse inference if he said nothing. The Claimant’s N600 dated 4.9.2025 asserted that the 2024 Order was served on DJJ: (1) on 5.6.2024 by the four permitted alternative service methods, and (2) by personal service on 27.5.2025 at around 08.00 am at the Quarry entrance during the protest. Further, the 2025 Order was served: (1) on 5.6.2025 by the permitted alternative service methods, and (2) by personal service on 18.6.2025 at around 08.31 am at the Quarry entrance during the protest. As to breach: (1) the Claimant asserted that on 27.5.2025, between 07.06 am and 11.45 pm, DJJ blocked vehicles from going in and out of the Quarry and trespassed on the Quarry; and (2) on 18.6.2025, between 06.45 am and 12.40 pm, DJJ blocked vehicles from going in and out of the Quarry and trespassed on the Quarry. DJJ put in no evidence and made no communications with the Claimant or the Court before the final hearing, despite the directions order made in October 2025 in his presence. He failed to attend on day one of the hearing and I issued a warrant for his arrest. Due to the fast and efficient actions of South Wales Police he was arrested and brought to Court on day two. He made a fuss and refused to acknowledge his full name. He wished only to be addressed as “Darren”. I obliged. However, he settled down and then took part in the proceedings. He was informed verbally at the start of the hearing that he did not have to say anything but that I could draw an adverse inference if he said nothing. He did attend on day three on time. When asked, he did not accept that he was present on either protest date and he denied being properly served and denied knowledge of the order and the prohibitions. He asserted the documents were frauds. He asserted he was not a PU but was instead a real person called Darren. Once the service and knowledge issues were determined by my decisions, DJJ denied intentionally carrying out the acts which were the breaches, so evidence was called and submissions were made and I stated that I found the breaches proved to the criminal standard, as alleged and that I would give my reasons later in this reserved judgment.

Dale Vincent (DV). DV was informed in the N600 and verbally at the start of the hearing that he did not have to say anything but that I could draw an adverse inference if he said nothing. The Claimant’s N600, dated 4.9.2025, asserted that the 2024 Order was served on DV: (1) on 5.6.2024, by the permitted alternative service methods, and (2) by personal service on 27.5.2025 at around 08.00 am at the Quarry entrance during the protest. Further, the 2025 Order was served: (1) on 5.6.2025, by the permitted alternative service methods, and (2) by personal service on 18.6.2025 at around 08.31 am at the Quarry entrance during the protest. As to breach: (1) the Claimant asserted that on 27.5.2025, between 07.06 am and 11.45 pm, DV blocked vehicles from going in and out of the Quarry and trespassed on the Quarry; and (2) on 18.6.2025, between 06.45 am and 12.40 pm, DV blocked vehicles from going in and out of the Quarry and trespassed on the Quarry. DV did put in evidence to the Court before the hearing and served it on the Claimant, but not in accordance with the October 2025 set of directions. He complied with earlier directions. His evidence consisted of a trail of emails to the South Wales Police relating to the eviction notice (KD1) given to protesters on 26.3.2024. He attached the full one page notice and he asserted the notice was a fraud and the bailiffs were Freemasons. He made no other relevant communications with the Claimant or the Court after attending in person at the final directions hearing before Constable J in October 2025. He provided no communications before the final hearing, despite the directions orders made on that day. He attended on day one of the hearing. He took part in the proceedings. He was informed in the N600 and verbally at the start of the hearing that he did not have to say anything but that I could draw an adverse inference if he said nothing. When asked, he accepted that he was present on both protest dates but he denied being properly served and denied knowledge of the order and the prohibitions. He asserted that all the orders were frauds. Once I made my decisions on the service and knowledge issues, DV then denied that he was bound by the Orders because they were against UPs and he was a known person. He also denied the breaches, so evidence was called and submissions were made on breach. No submissions were made by any party on whether the scope of the definition of UPs covered DV himself as a person known to the Claimant as a protester at that time. At the hearing I found the breaches proved to the criminal standard as alleged and stated I would provide a reserved judgment later and order later.

On 20.5.2024 the Claimant made an ex-parte application for an interim injunction against persons unknown. That was heard and granted by Williams J on the same day. The evidence in support was in a witness statement sworn by John Julian Radcliffe (JJR) dated 20.5.2024. He is the operations manager of the Quarry. His evidence, which was accepted by Williams J, showed that planning permission had been granted and protests arose. A threat was made to blow up the Quarry. At full capacity the Quarry produces 8000 tonnes per day of high quality sandstone for national roads and airport runways. About 58 lorries go in and out each day and, if disrupted, the Claimant loses turnover of between £55,000 and £100,000 per day. Explosives are carried in some of the lorries. Leaving them beside the public highway if the lorries are blocked at the entrance is not safe. He evidenced the protesters setting up a camp on the Quarry and he said he recognised DV at the camp in March 2024. The protesters were removed on 26.3.2024 by 18 bailiffs in the presence of many Police officers to keep the peace. He recited various protests in April 2024 and one on 12.4.2024 in which DV was involved and was arrested and bound over on bail by magistrates not to attend the Quarry. In May 2024 there was another protest and by this time the Claimant had painted a yellow line on the road to demarcate the boundary of the Quarry with the highway. The new method used by protesters was only to disrupt lorries for 10 minute periods. Williams J’s injunction prohibited UPs from blocking the access to and egress from the Quarry and trespass or damage to fences. Alternative service on the UPs to be prohibited was ordered. Four methods were directed: (1) big signs either side of the entrance; (2) big signs on fences; (3) emails sent to the protesters’ group known email addresses with the order and evidence; (4) a page on the Claimant’s website dedicated to the protesters. I should mention here that, when he gave evidence, JJR explained that DV was not named as a Defendant at that time because the Claimant knew that he was subject to bail conditions prohibiting him from attending the Quarry. The definition of “persons unknown” (UPs) was:

“(1)

persons unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the claimant on any part of the craig yr hesg quarry

(2)

persons unknown deliberately obstructing and/or interfering with the free movement of vehicles, equipment or persons accessing or egressing from the craig yr hesg quarry

(3)

persons unknown interfering with signs, fences or gates on the perimeter of or within the quarry”

On 22.5.2024 the Claimant issued the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim were dated the same day. The Defendants were UPs. The Claimant asserted 36 days of unlawful trespass by UPs since 25.3.2024. It was pleaded that the Claimant did not know who the protesters were save for one who had been arrested. I infer that was a reference to DV. It was pleaded that he had not been included because he was subject to bail conditions, so it was not “necessary”. Thus, it was pleaded that he, as a known person. was intentionally excluded from the list of Defendants.

On the return date, 5.6.2024, no protester appeared and the Claimant obtained a one year injunction (the 2024 Order) from HHJ Harrison against UPs in the same terms as the interim injunction with the same alternative service directions. No protester applied thereafter to vary or set aside the injunction.

On 15.5.2025, the Claimant applied for directions for renewal. On 20.5.2025 Goose J made directions for alternative service of the renewal application and the evidence in support on UPs. If there had been a named Defendant or two, the service on them would probably have been personal or postal or by some more specific means, depending on the evidence which the Claimant had gained about their postal or email address. I consider that had DJJ or DV been named as Defendants they would probably have been served at their addresses.

On 27.5.2025, the first of the two relevant protests took place about which the contempt applications were later issued. The Claimant’s case before me is that the 2024 Order against UPs was personally served on DV and DJJ on that date. KD is not alleged to have been protesting that day. However, by that time and long before then the Claimant and JJR accept that they knew DV by name as a regular protester. He had been in the March 2024 camp. He had been arrested in April 2024. They had made no application to add him as a named Defendant to the extended injunction. So, at least in relation to DV, the Claimant asserts that it served an injunction binding UPs on a person who was well known to them as a protester.

The case was listed for a reconsideration on 5.6.2025 because the 2024 Order was due to expire. The Claimant did not apply to add DV to the claim as a named Defendant, nor DJJ for that matter. On 5.6.2025 deputy High Court Judge O’Neill made the 2025 Order extending the prohibited activities for another year against UPs. The definition of persons unknown was the same. No named Defendant was added. Whilst I have not been provided with the witness statements of JJR provided to the Judge I have accessed JJR’s witness statement dated 30.5.2025 on the Cefile since the hearing. In that JJR asserted that he knew who DJJ was after 27.5.2025 by researching social media postings by Dale Vincent and others. The judgment of the DHCJ is in my bundle. She referred to JJR’s second and third witness statements and summarised that lawful protests had continued after the 2024 Order but unlawful protests had dramatically reduced to 10 since the Order. She summarised that, in JJR’s third witness statement he gave evidence about a recent protest at which copies of the 2024 Order had been given to individual protesters and they had complied with it. I do not know if that was a reference to what took place on 27.5.2025 or not. At para. 28 DHCJ O’Neill noted that two protesters had recently become known to the Claimant and it was “taking steps” to join the individuals to the claim. The Judge was therefore careful to consider the threat by unknown individuals, not those ones. I infer that the two known protesters are those named in JJR’s witness statement dated 30.5.2025: DJJ and DV, however I will make a final decision on that at the adjourned hearing because I wish to give the parties the opportunity to make further submissions upon it.

There is no application in my bundle to amend the Claim Form to add DJJ or DV to the claim either before DHCJ O’Neill’s 2025 Order or thereafter, so what she had been told by the Claimant would be done, was not done.

About 4 weeks later, on 3.7.2025, the Claimant applied, on form N244, for committal for contempt of all three named Defendants: KD, DJJ and DV. This was the wrong form to use and did not set out the required warnings to the Defendants. These applications were supported by the first affidavit (as distinct from witness statement) of JJR setting out the evidence against KD, DJJ and DV. He made it clear that he knew full well who DV was on 27.5.2025 but did not know DJJ by his full name on 27.5.2025. However, he also stated that by 27.6.2025 (the date of the affidavit), he did know DJJ by name. Indeed, as I set out above, the Claimant knew very well who DJJ was when the case came before DHCJ O’Neill on 5.6.2025, because she was informed that two known Defendants were to be added to the main action and they were both named in the witness statement of JJR dated 30.5.2025.

Mould J gave directions on 11.7.2025 which I shall pass over. Murray J gave further directions on 18.8.2025 to correct KD’s name which had been misstated. Then, Nicklin J gave directions on 22.8.2025, tidying up the procedural mess created by the wrong application forms being used. He directed the Claimant to issue the correct applications notices and to serve them personally on the Defendants with all the evidence and to file certificates of service and listed a directions hearing on 15.10.2025.

On 15.10.2025 the Defendants all attended, so personal service did what it is supposed to do. Constable J gave directions for the hearing of the committal applications. The hearing was listed for a fixed date of 19-23 January in Cardiff with day 1 being a reading day. If the Defendants wanted to give evidence they were directed to file and serve it by 19.11.2025 and otherwise evidence would not be admitted without the permission of the Court (the Defendant chose to file no evidence). The Defendants were ordered to attend in person (DJJ breached that direction and did not attend of day 1). The Defendants were to be sent and comment on the hearing bundle in early 2026 and skeleton arguments were to be filed by 15.1.2026. The Defendants did not file anything and made no comments on the bundle. One other Defendant gave an undertaking and was released from the proceedings (Ms A. Coggins).

During day two I considered DV’s application to adjourn. No notice of application was issued. No fee was paid. Despite the documents being sent overnight to the Claimant and the Court, and hence being in breach of the directions order of Constable J I allowed them in evidence. DV grounded his application on his asserted Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the need for legal assistance. The case law he provided did not assist the application. It was Mazur v Charles Russell [2025] EWHC 2341, in which Sheldon J made decisions in relation to costs awards for work carried out by non-solicitors. This was not relevant. As for the HMG respite scheme for debtors certificate signed by Professor Scott and dated 3.11.2025, it is clear that this proved that in November 2025 DV was receiving treatment for PTSD and recovering from a mental health crisis. I accept that but it was not up to date and from all I have seen of DV’s conduct in Court he held his own with excellent clarity of expression and calmness. He was alert and on the ball. I do not consider that granting further time for legal advice would have been fair to the Claimant, whose costs have been enormous for these applications. Nor do I consider that the overriding objective in CPR r.1.1 and the factors therein, in particular procedural efficiency, fair allocation of Court resources, ensuring a level playing field and ensuring compliance with Court orders, weighed in favour of granting the application. Legal aid should have been obtained earlier. DV told me that he did not obtain it because he does not trust lawyers. I dismissed the application.

I heard evidence from the following witnesses: JJR; KD; DJJ; DV. When making findings of fact I apply the criminal standard.

The Claimant’s live evidence from JJR was given in various bite sized portions relating to each issue to assist the Defendants. His affidavits stood as his evidence in chief. The evidence was contained in his affidavits dated 27.6.2025; 1.8.2025; 4.9.2025 and 1.12.2025. The Defendants’ evidence was given in the witness box. Despite the Defendants all breaching the directions given by Constable J, I permitted them to give live evidence on each issue which they raised.

JJR gave evidence that the 2024 Order was served by the 4 alternative methods on 5.6.2024. A certificate of service was also filed. Clear photos of the big yellow signs at the entrance to the Quarry and on the fences was provided. The Order was served on the protesters’ public group email addresses and on the Claimant’s website. JJR gave evidence that he personally served DV and DJJ on 27.5.2025 during the protest but he did not know who DJJ was then and he provided photos of them being handed the papers. They refused to take them. He explained what they were. He gave evidence that DV told him that he had already seen the 2024 Order. JJR gave evidence of DV’s social media postings after the event in which he wrote that he was he was “not a person and I’m definitely not fucking unknown … I am a man and I am Dale Vincent”. I should have noticed that this raised the potential defence that DV was not a Defendant to the claim but confess that I did not. In cross examination and in evidence the Defendants did not dispute any of the Claimant’s evidence on this. In their cross examination of JJR they focussed on the events the year before at the camp and what they asserted was the “fraudulent eviction warrant” (KD1). JJR admitted that the bailiffs had drawn KD1 up and he had altered the address, albeit with errors. He accepted the Claimant had hired Able Investigations from Bristol. A Mr Steve Wood’s photo was shown to him and he was asked whether he was one of the bailiffs. He stated that the police were in attendance and the Claimant exercised its common law right to evict trespassers from its land. He did not confirm Mr Woods was there. KD asserted she had no knowledge of the injunction in her evidence. DV cross examined JJR on the Royal Crest on the top of KD1 and the question was asked: why a Royal Crest similar to that used by the Court service was put in a circular red stamp at the top of the document. JJR accepted that this look alike “seal” was potentially not the most appropriate. It was put to him that he was not allowed to use a Royal Crest and he stated the bailiffs had drawn it up, not him. He had not gone to lawyers for advice at that time. In re-examination counsel took him to a Cardiff County Court seal which he considered was different.

Issue 4. I considered and rejected a submission by a defendant that he was not in the definition of UPs in Elliott Cuciurean v SoS for Transport [2022] EWHC 2457 (KB). On appeal that decision was upheld, but only by a majority, in Elliott Cuciurean v SoS for Transport [2022] EWCA Civ. 1519. It can be a tricky issue.

Because the 2024 Order was directed at UPs, as defined, I consider that the alternative service on KD and DJJ was good service. They were unknown when the Order was made and served. As to the personal service of the 2024 Order on DJJ on 27.5.2025, I consider that was also good service There being no evidence before me that DJJ was known to the Claimant at the time the 2024 Order was made or the time of service. As for DV, although at the hearing I announced that I had decided that the alternative service and the personal service on him were good service and stated I would give reasons in writing after the hearing. I would like to hear further submissions on issue 4 relating to DV. That is whether DV was a Defendant within the definition of UPs in the 2024 Order at the time of both alternative and personal service. I may change my decision expressed at the hearing and so I leave open this issue until the next hearing. I heard no argument from either DV or the Claimant’s counsel on whether DV fell within the defined Defendants (UPs) on the Claim Form. On reflection, having re-read the Particulars of Claim and the witness statement of JJR put before Williams J, and the later evidence of JJR; having considered DV’s obliquely expressed assertion that he was a “real person” and not an unknown person for the Claimant; I consider that DV has a potential defence that the 2024 Order was specifically not directed at him because he was known to the Claimant at the time the Claim Form was issued and when the interim injunction was sought and at renewal. The Claimant informed the Court during the applications for the interim injunction and the 2024 Order that DV was on bail with prohibitory conditions relating to the Quarry, therefore the Claimant pleaded expressly that they had decided that he was not to be named as a Defendant. There is nothing wrong, per se, with the Claimant choosing not to bring DV in as a named Defendant from the start, for the reasons given in the pleading, but later to rely on alternative service on UPs as service on DV is potentially: (a) unfair, and (b) wrong in principle and (c) not within the strict wording of the UPs on the Claim Form and in the 2024 Order. When a Claimant wishes to bring proceedings against a known Defendant he or she must be named and served in accordance with the CPR, thus personally, at his last known address or as otherwise permitted. The alternative service ordered by HHJ Harrison on UPs was arguably not directed at him. I wish to hear submissions on this because none were made at the hearing, before I decide whether to change my decision on service on DV of the 2024 Order. I also seek submissions on whether I am empowered or permitted to change a decision which I have announced in open Court, albeit with the reasons to be delivered in a reserved judgment.

As to alternative service of the 2025 Order, JJR gave evidence that it took place on 5.6.2025 using the same four methods permitted by the 2024 and 2025 Orders. JJR also gave evidence of personal service on all three Defendant at the protest on 18.6.2025 with photos and videos and he described how each refused to accept service. KD and DJJ were arrested later that morning and bailed. I infer that KD’s name became known to the Claimant after the bail conditions (which are in the bundle and which the Police told to the Claimant). JJR gave evidence that DV said during service: “what’s changed since the last time you gave us that injunction? … I am down here all week”. DJJ said: “pretend warrant … unlawful … you’re a dead entity … we’re here for the day.” I accept the evidence of JJR in relation to service, having found his approach to his evidence to be both careful and balanced. In relation to KD I have no evidence before me that the Claimant had knowledge of her name before 18.6.2025. She was arrested that day and thereafter the police informed the Claimant of her name. KD asserted that she did not understand the big yellow signs or the paperwork which was offered to her by way of service and which she refused to take. I reject the evidence given by KD and find as a fact that she was aware from the big yellow signs that there was a High Court injunction banning protesters who were unknown to the Claimant and hence unknown to the Court from blocking the Quarry entrance and from trespassing. I find that service by alternative means and personal means took place properly.

I find that physically both DJJ and DV were served with the 2025 Order on 18.6.2025 and were well aware of the big yellow signs either side of the Quarry entrance. However, on the issue of whether DJJ and DV were Defendants in the claim within the definition of UPs, it is clear to me that DJJ was a person whose name was well known to the Claimant before the date of the 2025 Order. The Claimant’s evidence to DHCJ O’Neill on 5.6.2025 was that two people would be joined to the claim. DJJ was one of them then, at the time when the 5.6.2025 Order was made so arguably DJJ did not come within the definition of UPs. Further, for the reasons set out above, arguably DV was not within the definition of UPs when the 2025 Order was made and so not bound by it because he had not been joined.

In relation to the protest on 27.5.2025, KD was not present, DJJ and DV were. I find that when the 2024 Order was made and when the protest took place, DJJ was not known to the Claimant so the decision I have made on good service stands. I find that DJJ was served by both alternative service and by personal service on him on 27.5.2025. In relation to DV I wish to reconsider the decision I announced at the hearing on good service on the basis that there is an arguable defence that DV was not a UP within the definition in the 2024 Order at the time the Order was made.

In relation to the 2025 Order, KD was present at the protest on 18.6.2025 and I find that she was served by both methods: the alternative service and the personal service on the day. I find that she came within the definition of UP in the 2025 Order for she was unknown to the Claimant at the time when the Order was made and when it was served. DJJ and DV were well known to the Claimant when the 2025 Order was made but they were not added as named Defendants to the action, or to the 2025 Order, despite the Claimant informing DHCJ O’Neill that they intended to do so for two known persons and were named in JJR’s 30.5.2025 witness statement. I wish to hear further submissions on whether DJJ and DV properly came within the definitions of UPs in the 2025 Order or fell outside it, before making a final decision. I also wish to hear submissions on whether I have the power to change my announced decision on that issue.

In law, so long as the correct procedure has been followed, the order and the application to commit and evidence have been served on the Defendant, the Defendant is properly a Defendant to the claim and the terms of the Order are clear and unambiguous, the issue of breach is usually one of fact with two parts:

However, a third requirement was raised by the Defendant’s assertions in evidence that they were not aware of the Orders or the contents thereof, made at the hearing. Submissions were made by Mr Fry about the law relating to knowledge. This was considered by Warby LJ in Cuciurean v SOS for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ. 357, see paras, 13, 54-62. The question posed was whether the Claimant must prove that the Defendant knew of the order and the prohibitions therein or is mere service enough? The Judge at first instance had found that there was no requirement to prove knowledge (para. 54). At para. 13 Warby LJ noted that Proudman J had found that only service was required (in Farnsworth v Lacy [2013] EWHC 3487) and Warby LJ noted the judgment of Lord Oliver in AG v Times [1992] 1 AC 181 at 217, that only service was required, not proof of knowledge. Warby LJ noted that lack of actual knowledge would be relevant to sanction (para. 57) and that in Cuadrilla v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ. 9, the Court of appeal had made it clear that, if the Defendant proved he did not know of the order and the prohibitions despite service then no sanction would be imposed.Warby LJ then set out his simple summary of the authorities at para. 58 and this included his ruling that there is no requirement to prove actual knowledge. At 62 he dismissed any worries about the effect of this decision. Soole J considered this in National Highways v Kirin [2023] EWHC 3000. He rejected the Defendant’s submissions that requirement 3 (knowledge) was necessary to prove breach (see paras. 23, 31 and 36), and ruled that if the Defendant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not have actual knowledge, that would have a substantial effect on sanction.

KD asserted she was not aware of the prohibitions. DJJ raised his dyslexia and deafness as the reasons why he did not know of the injunction but provided no evidence of either. He also contradicted himself by saying the injunctions which he knew of were fraudulent. DV asserted the injunctions were fraudulent. I reject the evidence of all three Defendants in relation to knowledge of the existence of the High Court Orders from 2024 and 2025. In the case of DJJ I find that his evidence was intentionally misleading. I have carefully looked at the layout and the signs and the places where all the Defendants walked for hours. These signs had been in place for a year. They were big and yellow with big typeface on them. The words were in plain and simple language and set out what was prohibited. I find that KD, DV and DJJ walked and stood close to the signs for many hours. I take into account that JJR told them of the prohibitions each time when he served the Orders with the injunctions package on the Defendants. I take into account the fact that both DV and DJJ assert that they were not unknown persons and infer they read the orders which expressly stated they were made against UPs. I find from their presence on 27.5.2024 (that is the presence of DV and DJJ), from their presence on 18.6.2025, from DV and DJJ’s social media postings, from the personal service effected on both dates by JJR, from the words said by JJR to them and from the words spoken by KD, DV and DJJ during the protests, that all three Defendants who protested together on 18.6.2025 knew of the 2025 Order and the prohibitions in the Order. I also find that DJJ and DV, who protested on 27.5.2025, knew of the prohibitions in the 2024 Order on that day. I also find that by being provided with the documents personally and by refusing to read them, despite personal service, they were intentionally trying to avoid the effects of the Orders and that they were saddled with constructive knowledge by doing so in any event.

Once I had given my decisions on service and knowledge, KD admitted breaches of the 2025 Order as asserted. I find that KD breached the 2025 Order prohibiting blocking the entrance to the Quarry for about 3 hours and committed multiple trespasses on the Claimant’s land.

DJJ denied breaching the 2024 Order or the 2025 Order. In his evidence he asserted that he cannot read or write. He read the affirmation without assistance. He accepted in evidence that JJR told him of the contents of the Orders when he personally served them on him. His main defence was that JJR had called him Darren John Jones and he denied that was his name, he said his name is “Darren”. I accept the photos of his presence on both occasions, the videos and the evidence of RJJ is, in my judgment, overwhelming. I reject DJJ’s denial. I find that DJJ intentionally did the acts set out on the notice of application to commit him for contempt on 27.5.2025 and 18.6.2025.

As for DV, he did not come to the witness box to give any evidence on breach. He admitted his presence and in evidence made no effort to give evidence that he had not done as alleged. I find that DV intentionally carried out the acts set out in the notice of application for committal for contempt on 27.5.2025 and 18.6.2025.

Regarding DV and DJJ, my findings about their intentional actions are not sufficient to make a finding of breach. My final decisions on breach in relation to DJJ and DV in relation to the protest on 18.6.2025, and my final decision in relation to DV and the protest on 27.5.2026, will await the further submissions which I have requested. If either or both of the 2024 or 2025 Orders did not bind them as Defendants, then breach is irrelevant because they had a defence to the applications.

As for KD’s actions on 18.6.2025, and DJJ’s actions at the protest on 27.5.2025, breach is relevant because I have found that they were properly served and KD had knowledge of the 2025 Order and DJJ had knowledge of the 2024 Order and the prohibitions therein.

The hearing was adjourned for me to deliver a reserved judgment and for evidence to be gathered for sanction and mitigation. It was also adjourned because of my concerns about the Defendants’ allegation that the Claimant had issued a fraudulent warrant to protesters on 26.3.2024.

KD1 was produced by KD during the hearing. It had been sent by DV to the Claimant in August 2025 and was only partly copied into my bundle. The part copied omitted the red circular “imitation” Court Seal. So, I did not see that before the hearing. When it was produced it showed a red circular Seal with a Royal Crest inside and the words “common law eviction” around it. It included the words: “and/or in the Cardiff County Court”. The Seal was put at the top right hand corner, just where Court Seals are placed. KD1 went on to require all trespassers to leave the Quarry but gave the wrong address. JJR gave evidence in cross examination of its provenance. On counsel’s request I gave a warning against self-incrimination before he answered. Counsel referred me to S.14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 and Triplex v Lance [1939] 2 KB 395. Whether or not it was strictly necessary I considered it safest to give the warning. JJR informed me that the Claimant had hired private bailiffs. Able Investigations drafted the notice and put the seal on it. The Claimant used it after amending the address of the quarry and the Bailiffs gave it to the trespassers at the Quarry. The Defendants asserted it was a fraudulent attempt to pretend that the Claimant had a Court Order. No proceedings had been started in Cardiff County Court or any Court at that time.

I was not addressed by anyone on the common law right of a freeholder of land to evict trespassers from the land without a Court Order. Rather laughably, KD1 referred to the 2010 edition of Halsbury’s Laws for its legal authority. What concerns me is the use of the Royal Crest in a red circular fake seal and the reference to the Cardiff County Court in KD1. Those, in my view, were clumsy attempts which could mislead members of the public that KD1 had more authority that it really did: the authority of a Judge of Cardiff County Court. A close reading of the notice of course showed that it did not, but members of the public who are protesting and trespassing may not all be lawyers, or have access to legal advice and may have a range of learning excellence or difficulties. My concern was so serious that I asked the Claimant to provide any further evidence that it wished to provide before I considered sanction. I also invited the Claimant to consider whether it wished to file evidence from Able to explain the notice. I was informed that the Claimant did wish to do so and the hearing was adjourned partly for that to take place. I consider that the Defendants’ focus on what they call the “fraudulent warrant” will be relevant to the sanction decisions I have to make. DV asserted that he would not accept any asserted Court Orders sent to him by the Claimant after that fake warrant had been “served” on him and I have some sympathy with that evidence.

High Court and County Court bailiffs or enforcement officers are appointed by the Courts. They can have those appointments revoked. I may consider referring Able to the relevant officers for considerations of such a move. The “Seal” on KD 1 may constitute a contempt of Court and I may refer the notice to the Attorney General for consideration of bringing contempt proceedings against the Claimant and/or Able. Before any such decision is taken I have afforded the Claimant and Able the opportunity to put in evidence and make submissions.

I have adjourned the hearing for mitigation and evidence on sanctions and on KD1. I also seek submissions on the overlooked defence, issue 4 above, namely whether DJJ and DV are within the definition of UPs in the Orders and on whether I have the power to alter my announced decisions on service and breach before making the actual orders and before finalising by reserved judgment.