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

I am further satisfied on the evidence that there remains a real and imminent risk of further unlawful protest at the Claimant’s sites and that any such unlawful protests would represent an infringement of the Claimant’s rights. No defendant has sought at any stage to engage with the Claimant’s application and no arguable defence to the claim has been identified. The fact that since the interim relief was granted the number of incidents has diminished is evidence that the injunctive relief is well targeted and effective.

The tactic of pursuing and targeting the lawyers acting for the Claimant represents a shift in emphasis as a direct result of the Court issuing relief. The proscription of Palestine Action has not reduced the risk in my judgement; it has rather made it harder to monitor and respond to that risk. A number of other groups have emerged to fill the vacuum created by proscription and the aims of those groups remain the same. There is no reason to suppose that the Claimant does not remain a ‘target’ of those groups, and the individuals associated with them.

The majority of the named defendants have been charged with a variety of criminal offences arising from their previous targeting of the Claimant. They have been tried or are awaiting trial. All have pleaded not guilty in their criminal proceedings but none of them deny the underlying conduct. As I have already observed all have failed to engage with this Claim in any way.

The loss that would be occasioned to the Claimant by further acts of unlawful protest would not in my view be adequately compensated by damages. Significant harm has already been caused to the Claimant’s sites. That harm (both caused and risked) is not only financial. There is a significant direct risk of physical harm to the Claimant’s staff, the defendants and the wider public by protests that targets secure sites on which are stored highly volatile chemicals and other compounds. There is also an ongoing indirect risk to military personnel occasioned by equipment shortages if disruptive protests on the scale of those to date continue. The financial costs have been significant, both direct and in terms of the further security measures that have had to be taken to secure the Claimant’s six sites. The Claimant’s should not have to make good the significant destruction caused by the Defendant’s actions by conducting repairs.