North Warwickshire Borough Council v Persons Unknown: High Court continues oil terminal protest injunction

The High Court has continued, without amendment, an injunction and power of arrest restricting protest at an inland oil terminal in Warwickshire, finding that the threat of direct action is higher than a year ago.

In North Warwickshire Borough Council v Persons Unknown & Ors [2026] EWHC 2569 (KB), HHJ Emma Kelly, sitting as a judge of the High Court, carried out the second annual review of the order protecting Kingsbury Oil Terminal. None of the defendants, a combination of persons unknown and named individuals, attended or was represented.

The injunction was granted in September 2024. It prohibits protests within the terminal boundary and restricts certain protest activity in its locality, with a power of arrest under section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. It runs until 6 September 2027, subject to annual review. The first review in September 2025 continued it, discharging it only against one defendant who had been named in error.

Service and procedure

The judge called the council's delay in serving the first review order on the named defendants until early September 2026 unsatisfactory, although the hearing was publicised widely. The second review hearing was adjourned from 18 September to 7 October because the court failed to list the case, which cured any prejudice. The adjournment order was then served on all defendants by 24 September. The judge also granted the council relief from sanctions for late compliance with four requirements of the first review order, including updating signage and filing evidence.

The review

Citing Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers, the judge restated that a review is not a rehearing of the merits but asks whether anything material has changed. Following Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown, the court considers how effective the order has been, whether grounds for discharge have emerged, whether continuation is justified, and whether and on what basis a further order should be made.

The council's chief executive reported no protests or breaches since the first review, and no notice of planned action by Just Stop Oil or affiliated groups. The judge treated that as evidence that the order was deterring protest, applying Valero v Persons Unknown, rather than evidence that the threat had passed. Just Stop Oil had announced an end to disruptive protest in March 2025 but had returned to direct action, including a protest by about 60 activists in Parliament Square on 2 September 2026, and its website now urged supporters to resist and join a planning call.

The terminal is among the country's largest, able to hold 405 million litres of flammable liquids and close to residential properties. Interference with its operation risks fire or explosion, with consequences for life, property and the environment. The judge concluded that the threat of direct action was now higher than at the first review.

No change in law was identified, and no defendant engaged with the review or suggested grounds for discharge or variation. Applying the Wolverhampton questions, the injunction had been very effective, no grounds for discharge had emerged and its continuation was properly justified. It continues unamended.

No further review will be listed, because the order expires at 4pm on 6 September 2027. Any extension would require a formal application by the council, and the order's liberty to apply remains available to anyone affected who wishes to seek variation or discharge.

Charlotte Crocombe, instructed by the council's legal services, appeared for the claimant.