Valero Energy Limited & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

The Claimants are part of a large petrochemical group, known as Valero Energy Group, which covers 8 sites in the UK, comprising an oil refinery and various oil terminals). On 26 January 2024, Mr Justice Ritchie granted a final injunction (“the Injunction Order”) against the Defendants, (Valero v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 KB). The Defendants were Persons Unknown connected with Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain and Youth Climate Swarm who were trespassing on the 8 sites, blocking access to the 8 sites and/or who had been involved in suspected tortious behaviour. The Injunction Order was to last 5 years but made provision for an annual review. The First Review took place on 24 January 2025 before Hill J (Valero v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB)) when it was ordered that the Injunction Order remain in full force and effect (“the First Review Order”).

On 16 February 2026, the matter came before me for the purpose of the Second Review hearing. The Claimants were represented by Ms Katherine Holland KC. The Defendants did not attend, nor were they represented. At the conclusion of the hearing I ordered that the Injunction Order should remain in full force and effect pending further review with reasons to be provided. These are those reasons.

The factual background is set out in detail in the Ritchie judgment. I do not rehearse it here. All that needs to be recorded for present purposes is that between 1 and 7 April 2022 a number of environmental activists undertook direct action at the Kingsbury Terminal (one of the 8 sites) and on the adjoining access roads. This led to approximately 48 individuals being arrested by the Warwickshire Police at and around that site. Further protest activity took place at and around the Kingsbury Terminal between 9 and 15 April 2022 leading to a number of arrests. The Claimants brought the claim to avoid potentially serious health and safety and environmental consequences of the Defendants’ threatened actions, as well as other serious consequences for the public. Similar direct action occurred at a number of other oil terminals and refineries as well as associated sites. These actions were combined with statements demonstrating a commitment to disrupt indefinitely the oil industry until the Defendants’ demands were met. In consequence, injunctions were granted to a number of other entities involved in the energy industry.

The service of documents in these proceedings is permitted by alternative means in the case of the First and Second and Third Defendants (where no postal address is known). In summary, service on the First and Second Defendants is permitted by a combination of uploading documents to the Valero Service Website, placing copies at a total of 55 locations across the 8 sites and emailing the website addresses set out in Schedule 1 of the order of Master Cook dated 8 June 2023. In the case of the Third Defendants where a postal address is known, service may be effected in the usual way. The subsequent order of Master Eastman of 1 December 2023 provides that exhibits to witness statements need not be physically served and that the Defendants can be informed by way of a covering letter confirming that the exhibit will be available on the Valero Service Website. The steps taken by the Claimants to serve the relevant court documents are set out in the tenth witness statement of Anthea Adair. I am satisfied that service of court documents has been effected. Ms Adair’s eleventh statement sets out how the hearing bundle was served in accordance with the order of Master Eastman of 1 December 2023. Again, I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the hearing bundle was served in accordance with that order.

In Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies & Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45 the Supreme Court gave the following guidance in relation to review hearings and indicated that such hearings:

“… give all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been; whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made”

In HS2 v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie considered how a Court should go about this task. He stated:

“32.

Drawing these authorities together, on a review of an interim injunction against PUs and named Defendants, this Court is not starting de novo. The Judges who have previously made the interim injunctions have made findings justifying the interim injunctions. It is not the task of the Court on review to query or undermine those. However, it is vital to understand why they were made, to read and assimilate the findings, to understand the sub-strata of the quia timet, the reasons for the fear of unlawful direct action. Then it is necessary to determine, on the evidence, whether anything material has changed. If nothing material has changed, if the risk still exists as before and the claimant remains rightly and justifiably fearful of unlawful attacks, the extension may be granted so long as procedural and legal rigour has been observed and fulfilled.

33.

On the other hand, if material matters have changed, the Court is required to analyse the changes, based on the evidence before it, and in the full light of the past decisions, to determine anew, whether the scope, details and need for the full interim injunction should be altered. To do so, the original thresholds for granting the interim injunction still apply.”

In Arla Foods v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1952, where the injunction was not interlocutory, a 5-year injunction was granted against animal rights protestors. In relation to the provision made for annual reviews, Jonathan Hilliard KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) stated:

“128.

The annual review will allow a continued assessment of whether circumstances have changed so as to make the continuation of the injunction appropriate and the five year maximum an appropriate end-point. In my judgment, it would not be appropriate to require the Claimants to incur the costs of applying each year for a new or renewed injunction. Rather the review should be of whether the position has developed since the last review.”

In Transport for London v Persons Unknown and Others [2025] EWHC 55 (KB) 16 January 2025, Mr Justice Morris took a similar approach at [54] to [57]. He referred to the guidance in the Wolverhampton case set out above and stated:

“55.

In the present cases, TfL has already provided detailed evidence at a full trial and the Court has on two occasions already made a full determination of the issue of risk and the balance of interests. In my judgment, in those circumstances there needed to be some material change in order to justify a conclusion that the Final Injunctions should not continue …”

In the local authority context, in Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 (KB), Garnham J said;

“51.

In my judgment, the correct approach is dictated by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Wolverhampton and in particular in [225]. This is not a “tick box” exercise, but the matters on which evidence should be adduced and argument focused are (i) how effective the order has been: (ii) whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; (iii) whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and (iv) whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made. The parties should give full disclosure, supported by appropriate evidence, directed towards those questions.

52.

There will be cases, such as Basingstoke, where an issue has emerged whether at the original hearing or in preparation for the renewed hearing, which needs to be addressed expressly at the renewal hearing. Whether that necessitates an expanded renewal hearing or what Ms Brimelow calls a de novo hearing will depend on the facts. The position may also be different where the application for injunctive relief is not made during the currency of the previous order, but after it has expired. But the guiding light will always be the Supreme Court’s judgment in Wolverhampton.”

Since the date of the First Review of the injunction (on 24 January 2025) Just Stop Oil issued a press release (on 27 March 2025) stating that it would be “hanging up the hi vis” at the end of April 2025 (“the March Press Release”). A number of judges have therefore had to consider whether the level of risk remains sufficient to continue various injunctions following the March Press Release. The most relevant initial decision following the March Press Release was that of Sweeting in J Esso Petroleum Company, Limited v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1768. The injunction in that case protected various sites including an oil refinery, fuel terminals, logistic hubs and compounds. Sweeting J considered whether there was a continued threat of tortious activity holding that the threat of direct action continued to be a real one. He referred to direct evidence from Just Stop Oil itself acknowledging the effectiveness of injunctions in deterring their actions, namely a tweet from 13 September 2023 stating in relation to protests on highways that:

“Disruption is frustrating but we have no other choice. Fossil fuel companies have taken out private injunctions that makes protests impossible at oil refineries, oil depts and even petrol stations”.

Mr Justice Sweeting noted that this suggested:

“the removal of the injunction would invite renewed activity of the sort that it was designed to prevent”.

At [14] Mr Justice Sweeting noted that Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil continued to focus their attention on the oil and gas sector. In relation to the March Press Release, at [15] he said:

“The press release itself contained a “Note to Editors” that is hard to reconcile with an unequivocal renunciation of direct action. More significantly, undercover reporting on 16 May 2025 referred to an alleged recording of JSO indicating that it had not disbanded, prompting JSO to email its mailing list on 21 May 20205 stating: “GB News was right for once. We are plotting “a very big comeback””. The email further suggested that this renewed campaign might operate under a new title albeit with the same aims and conducted by the same protestors: “Just Stop Oil was just the beginning. A new campaign is in the works – one that will build on our knowledge and success at Just Stop Oil and will face the grinding injustice of our political and economic system head on. We’re just getting started”.”

Mr Justice Sweeting referred to similar statements by Extinction Rebellion in the past (to the effect that it was relinquishing forms of protest) which had not been honoured. He also referred to a Just Stop Oil social media photo stating “JUST GETTING STARTED” and a report in June 2025 inviting recruitment for Youth Swarm, with events advertised using the Just Stop Oil logo and an organiser quoted as saying: “This is an inhale before we breathe out and expand into brand new territory, into something even bigger than we’ve tried before. This is the start of something genuinely thrilling.”

Since this decision of Sweeting J (in July 2025), there have been review hearings in other cases when the Courts have decided that the injunctions should be continued. For example, on 18 July 2025 there was a review of an injunction granted in Gatwick Airport v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2228 by Mr Duncan Atkinson KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge) and on 26 August 2025 there was a review of an injunction in the case of London City Airport v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2223 (KB) by Mr Justice Bourne. In the latter case, Bourne J stated at [16]: “I accept that removing the injunctions at present would create a real risk of a resumption of activity at airports.” The review hearing of most factual significance to the instant case is North Warwickshire Borough Council v Baldwin & others [2025] EWHC 2403 in which HH Judge Emma Kelly continued an injunction on the basis of the evidence of the continued level of risk at the wider Kingsbury site, as referred to at [14] to [23] of her judgment.

Ritchie J made the following finding as to the level of risk on the basis of the evidence which was available to him on 26 January 2024:

“64.

In my judgment the evidence shows that the Claimants have a good cause of action and fully justified fears that they face a high risk and an imminent threat that the remaining 17 named Defendants (who would not give undertakings ) and/or that the UPs will commit the pleaded torts of trespass and nuisance at the 8 sites in connection with the 4 organisations.”

He went on to find that the Defendants did not have a realistic defence to the claim; that the balance of convenience and justice weighed in favour of granting the final injunction to the Claimants and that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the Claimants. He was also satisfied that the various procedural requirements set out in the case law were satisfied by the injunction proposed. Like Hill J, in her 2024 review, I take these findings as my starting point in accordance with the legal framework outlined above.

There has been no material change in the case law since the Ritchie judgment and First Review Order. There has been no new legislation which is material to the issues which I must consider. As to the updating factual evidence, Ms Holland referred me to the relevant statements in the hearing bundle, comprising the 7^th witness statement of Emma Pinkerton dated 11 December 2025 and the 7^th witness statement of David Blackhouse dated 15 December 2025. These statements, which I accept, address the questions posed by the Wolverhampton case. In this context therefore:

I have reviewed the evidence and recent legal developments. I am satisfied that nothing material has changed and that the risk which justified the making of the Injunction Order still remains. Procedural and legal rigour has been “observed and fulfilled” (HS2 at [32]).

I approve the draft Order and Ritchie J’s order will remain in effect pending further review by this Court in no more than 12 months’ time.