KB-2024-004175 - [2025] EWHC 2050 (KB)

Asking myself the five Ziegler questions the first four can plainly be answered in the affirmative. I have therefore gone on to consider the fifth ‘proportionality’ question and in doing so the four sub-questions:

I am satisfied that the aim of the injunctive relief sought is sufficient to justify interference with the Defendant’s rights. There is a history of seriously disruptive unlawful conduct designed to obstruct the highway and future disruption would cause significant loss to the Claimant. There is plainly a rational connection between the final injunctive relief sought and the aim of preserving the right of the Claimant to free and unfettered access to the Public Highway. The decrease in unlawful protests since the interim relief was granted demonstrates that the injunction has achieved its intended effect.

As I have already observed I do not consider damages to be an adequate remedy and there are no less restrictive means available. I do not consider that recent changes to the law to create new criminal offences aimed at protesters have had the effect of deterring those who seek to unlawfully protest at the Claimant’s sites in the manner prohibited by the terms of this injunction.

I am also satisfied (as were Bourne J and Tipples J when granting interim Orders), that the making of this final Order will not interfere with or restrict the right to peaceful and lawful protest at any of the Claimant’s sites. As the evidence before me demonstrated, peaceful and lawful protests have taken place, and the Order sought would not fetter the right to hold them. Rather, the Order is targeted at the restriction of unlawful protest that would cause further serious losses to the Claimant in addition to those that have already been occasioned.

In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that the Ziegler requirements are all satisfied and that it is just and convenient to grant the final Order sought against the Named Defendants.