Valero Energy Ltd vs environmental protestors

4 Feb 2025Court Report

High Court extends injunction against environmental protestors at Valero sites

Introduction

In a significant ruling, the High Court extended an injunction against environmental protestors associated with groups such as Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, and Youth Climate Swarm. The case, Valero Energy Ltd vs Persons Unknown, was presided over by Mrs Justice Hill DBE and involved the continuation of legal protections for Valero Energy Ltd and its subsidiaries against potential disruptions at their oil terminals and refineries.

Background

The Claimants, Valero Energy Ltd, Valero Logistics UK Ltd, and Valero Pembrokeshire Oil Terminal Ltd, are part of the Valero Group, a major player in the petrochemical industry. They sought legal action to prevent protestors from trespassing and obstructing operations at their sites. The original injunction, granted by Ritchie J on 26 January 2024, was intended to last five years, with provisions for annual reviews.

Factual Context

The case arose from a series of protests in April 2022, where activists engaged in direct actions at the Kingsbury Terminal, resulting in numerous arrests. These protests were part of a broader campaign targeting the oil industry. The injunction aimed to mitigate the health, safety, and environmental risks posed by such actions.

Service and Procedural Aspects

The Claimants faced challenges in serving the order to the Defendants, many of whom were 'Persons Unknown'. Alternative methods of service were employed, as outlined in the court order. The Claimants also applied for relief from sanctions due to technical issues in filing the hearing bundle, which was granted by the court.

Legal Framework

The court's decision was guided by precedents such as Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers and HS2 v Persons Unknown. These cases emphasise the importance of reviewing injunctions to assess their effectiveness and necessity. The court considered whether any material changes had occurred since the original injunction was granted.

Evidence and Submissions

The Claimants presented evidence indicating a continued threat of protest actions. Testimonies from security and legal representatives highlighted ongoing risks and the lack of communication from Defendants indicating a cessation of activities. The court found no significant change in circumstances to warrant altering the existing injunction.

Conclusion

Mrs Justice Hill upheld the injunction, citing the persistent threat of unlawful actions. The decision reflects the court's commitment to balancing the rights of protestors with the operational needs and safety concerns of the Claimants. The injunction will be reviewed again in one year.