Protest – Too Much?

Despite protests from environmental groups groups the Court has granted a peremptory injunction to prevent fracking protesters entering a number of connected business locations and exploration sites.

The Facts

Ineos is a global manufacturer of chemicals and oil products whose commercial activities include shale gas exploration in the UK. Ineos is engaged in "fracking" which is one method of gas exploration and involves the hydraulic fracturing of rock formations. Ineos feared there would be protests at eight sites [the owners and lessees of those sites were also claimants in this action]. Protestors against fracking had in the past entered land and buildings in other locations without the consent of the owners and lessees and interfered with the rights to pass and repass with or without vehicles, materials and equipment over private access roads of those other locations. Most of the acts of protest had not yet taken place at any of the eight sites but Ineos brought an application for an injunction to prevent such protests from taking place in the future. This sort of injunction is rare and known as a quia timet injunction (an injunction in anticipation of a breach of a legal right).

The Defendants

A further interesting aspect of the case was that only the identity of two Defendants was known. They were named as two Defendants, however the other five Defendants were all described as "Persons unknown" followed by their potential activity of protest. For example "Persons unknown interfering with the Claimants' rights to pass and repass with or without vehicles ....over land identified by plans....". And another example "Persons unknown combining together to commit unlawful acts specified in the Court's order...".

The Court order then listed activities of likely protest taken from the activities of protest that had occurred at other fracking sites like: static demonstrations, blockades, walking slowly, people chaining themselves to vehicles and plant equipment, office incursions or occupations and alike. Whilst on the whole the protests at other sites had been peaceful, there had been some considerable intimidation and harassment and some criminality on occasions. Some acts had also been unlawful.

Submissions

Ineos submitted that they would have the following causes of action:

Trespass on private land; Actionable interference with private rights of way; Public nuisance caused to Ineos's right to pass and repass on the highway; Harassment; and...