“… 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”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 …”
“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”
“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 on16 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””
“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”.”
“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.”
“I accept that removing the injunctions at present would create a real risk of a resumption of activity at airports.”
“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.”
“Do you know what happens if you protest outside oil refineries now? Oil companies have brought injunctions to ban people from taking action at refineries, distribution hubs, even petrol stations. Punishments for breaking injunctions range from unlimited fines to imprisonments.” b. There is no evidence before me justifying discharge of the Injunction Order. Notwithstanding the March Press Release, the risk justifying the grant of the Injunction Order remains. Ms Pinkerton refers to the press release from Just Stop Oil on25 April 2025 announcing that “we-re just getting started” and to various newspaper articles about, and statements of intent from, protest groups. These include a statement of the website of Just Stop Oil that “A new revolutionary direct action campaign is coming. Help us to build what is best” and a statement on the website of Extinction Rebellion that: “Yes, its 2025, no we are not backing down……” and “This year, XR will act with greater determination, grit and focus”