High Court upholds protest injunction at Kingsbury Oil Terminal following annual review

The High Court has maintained an injunction prohibiting protests at Kingsbury Oil Terminal in Warwickshire following its first annual review, despite the absence of protest activity since the order was granted in September 2024.

HHJ Emma Kelly, sitting at Birmingham Civil and Family Justice Centre, rejected arguments that the lack of recent incidents indicated the injunction was no longer necessary. The court determined that the absence of protests likely demonstrated the deterrent effect of the order rather than a reduction in risk.

Background and procedural history

North Warwickshire Borough Council originally sought the injunction following significant protest activity in 2022 at the Terminal, one of the country's largest oil storage facilities. The final order, granted on 6 September 2024, prohibits protests within the Terminal boundary and restricts certain activities in the surrounding locality, with a power of arrest attached under s.27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006.

The defendants include both named individuals and categories of "Persons Unknown" connected to environmental protest groups, primarily Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. None attended the review hearing despite proper service having been established through various alternative methods, including A1-sized signage around the Terminal perimeter.

Evidence supporting continuation

The Council's Chief Executive, Steven Maxey, provided updating evidence highlighting continued risks. Key factors included Just Stop Oil's website messaging describing themselves as "just getting started" with references to "revolutionary direct action campaigns" and civil resistance tactics. The organisation has shifted focus from preventing new oil and gas licences to stopping extraction and burning by 2030.

Intelligence received as recently as July 2025 indicated other environmental groups were planning direct action, though their covert operations made engagement difficult. The Terminal continues operating with millions of litres of highly flammable fossil fuels, maintaining the same safety risks that originally justified the injunction.

Police representatives at a Warwickshire Local Resilience Forum meeting confirmed they still regarded the injunction and power of arrest as operationally essential for maintaining order at the site.

Legal considerations

The court addressed potential implications from recent case law, particularly MBR Acres Ltd v Curtin [2025] EWHC 331 (KB), which raised questions about defining "Persons Unknown" categories, service requirements, and whether permission should be required before contempt proceedings.

HHJ Kelly declined to amend the detailed definitions of "Persons Unknown" defendants, finding they remained compliant with Supreme Court guidance in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47. The court maintained alternative service provisions, emphasising the continuing obligation to actively inform potential respondents about the order's terms.

Significantly, the court rejected proposals to require permission before contempt applications, noting the Council had not misused the contempt process and that such a requirement would undermine the utility of the attached power of arrest, which enables 24-hour court production of arrested defendants.

The judgement reinforces that review hearings focus on material changes since the original order rather than relitigating underlying merits. The court found no factual or legal developments warranting discharge or amendment of the injunction, which remains effective until September 2027 subject to further annual reviews.

This decision demonstrates the courts' willingness to maintain robust protection for critical infrastructure where genuine safety concerns persist, even absent recent incidents, whilst carefully balancing procedural requirements with operational effectiveness.