INEOS injunction judge rules against appeal – campaigners say the fight goes on

Joe Corre and Joseph Boyd Ian R Crane

Joe Corre (left) and Joe Boyd. Photo: Ian R Crane

Two campaigners have vowed to continue their fight against the injunction granted to INEOS Upstream over anti-fracking protests.

The High Court judge who granted the injunction refused permission for their appeals in an order issued today.

Joe Corre and Joe Boyd said this evening they would lodge requests in early January directly with the Court of Appeal.

The judge, Mr Justice Morgan, also rejected INEOS’s application for costs against Mr Corre and Mr Boyd.

The injunction, finalised in November 2017, was directed against “persons unknown” and prohibited them from interfering with the lawful activities of INEOS’s staff and contractors. People who breached the order risked prison or seizure of their assets.

Mr Justice Morgan removed a section against harassment granted after a secret hearing in July 2017. But he maintained the injunction against two protest techniques: slow walking in front of delivery lorries and climbing on top of vehicles, known as lorry surfing.

In his ruling, he said:

“I consider that on all matters of principle, I applied established authority to the circumstances of this case.”

He identified case law to support his ruling. These included the judgement in City of London v Samede from 2012, where the Court of Appeal refused permission for a hearing.

Mr Corre said this evening:

“In many ways it is really important now to go to the court of appeal. We have something worth fighting for.

“This is nothing to do with fracking but about standing up for our human rights against the dangerous precedent that allows corporations to buy the law.”

Mr Corre said he would also be looking at bringing a case on the legality of fracking itself under the UK’s Climate Change Act.

Mr Boyd said:

“We have to go to the Court of Appeal. This case has huge public interest. It deserves to be heard by the Court of Appeal.

“We can’t just sit back on our laurels and allow a company to take out injunctions against persons unknown.

“We have to fight back, otherwise it will open the flood gates to other companies to do the same.”


Four INEOS companies and six landowners had applied for costs against Mr Corre and Mr Boyd for their challenge to the initial order.

But in today’s ruling, the judge refused their claim. Mr Justice Morgan said the participation of Mr Corre and Mr Boyd had lengthened the hearing but had been “of assistance to the court in a case of public importance”.

“I have reached the conclusion that the fair result is that there should be no order for costs in respect of the Claimants’ application.”

The judge also refused an application by Mr Corre for costs against INEOS.

DrillOrDrop reports

Breaking news on the injunction ruling and reaction

What the judge said in his ruling on INEOS fracking protest injunction

Campaigners explain why they will fight on against INEOS fracking protest injunction

  • DrillOrDrop invited INEOS to comment on the judge’s ruling. This post will be updated with any response


16 replies »

  1. They can, of course, carry on if they wish. In which case public also have the perfect right under law that they be arrested and charged for violating a banning order.

    • The ‘injunction’ (and note inverted comments due to the questionable morality and legality) has only capped certain activities. There is so much positive action by the anti-fracking community and many ways to protest. This is just a drop in a very big ocean. It will not stop the opposition. The focus should now be on removing this governance democratically and reversing the devastation on the many people who inhabit this island and redistribute the privileges vested on the rich. It will come; is inevitable Mr Anderson……

  2. How interesting? It would appear that an appeal has to be directed at the very process of inappropriate misappropriation of the secret court system by injunction.

    And in the specific aspect of whether an injunction should be able to overturn centuries of law to favour corporations over the entire counties historic civil, human and common law rights that were established in law since the Magna Carta?

    But it is also interesting to see that this decision was based upon a precedent case where an appeal was refused?

    Perhaps that could also be challenged by the precedent of how many appeals were allowed?

    This just goes to prove what I had said before, that in the end, the human and civil and common law rights under UK law would have to be fought to retrieve the pre injunction status in the law courts.

    Just as women’s right to vote movement and the freedom of the slaves movement.

    I say again it is indeed curious that a country can be invaded without armies and weapons and then slavery could be resurrected against an entire country by a legal injunction taken out in a secret court system. That secret court system was initiated, it seems, and brought about under David Cameron’s prime ministership to deal specifically with emergencies and national security measures and as such should never have been extended to what amounts to a private corporation civil matter?

    How this secret court injunction was allowed to even be proposed, let alone taken seriously perhaps says more about the state that this country has descended towards a police state.

    • I agree entirely. I believe fracking and latterly Brexit is being used in this country by government and the corporations that run the government to destroy the laws that generations in this country have fought for. The population are lulled into apathy by the celebrity culture and are being brainwashed by the right wing media into believing that it is those that resist this theft of our long held freedoms and rights who are in the wrong. I find it all terrifying. It’s time everyone woke up.

  3. Well said Phil C. And well done the two Joes, both heroes – thank you for continuing to fight on behalf of us and planet Earth.

    • Here for your information is Ian R Cranes……entirely……relevant video today for you to Enjoy!
      In todays broadcast Ian talks about the latest refusal of the appeal against the Ineos in junk sham.

      This needs to be said, whilst those who seek only to personally benefit from this legalised invasion into our country, there are an increasing number of people who see the truth of this subject as being the vanguard of the fifth column attempts to overturn democracy into some pale horse farce of a totalitarian corporate police state.

      It is no longer about whether we contest this political and corporate coup or not, it is now how it must be peacefully accomplished to return democratic freedom for all.

      There is a saying, that for evil to succeed, all it requires is for good people to do nothing.

      If we just roll over and play dead on this, what we will live to see is the crushing of freedom of speech and action and the end of democracy sacrificed on the alter of corporate rule over everyone and everything. For us, our children and for countless generations to come.

      That must not happen.

      No doubt if this does overturn democracy, it will be to the applause of those who either seek to benefit financially from this insidious invasion, or are so configured, they just want to see the world burn.

      It is no accident that this decision was released on the day before the busiest shopping weekend before Christmas.

      That alone should indicate that there is a very real agenda here.

      Did I say Enjoy? Oh yes, and believe me I mean it, Enjoy Christmas, as the Queen said, it may be your last.

  4. Another one lost.

    Becoming a bit of a routine now. How about changing back to the old system, doing away with courts, and re-introducing ducking stools etc.? That should convince any floating voter! (Sorry, Christmas cracker time.)

  5. Disturbing times. The law more and more perverted to subjugate the masses rather than protect them.
    Joe Boyd & Joe Corre, thank you for your principled stand.

    • ‘Ahh, a bad loser! Getting used to it?’ such a cry of frustration; yes, am afraid although it may be impossible for you Martin you will have to, but that’s life; never mind, we are always here to help……

  6. Ooo a nice early Xmas pressie. Bit gutted costs were not awarded against but ah well got what we ultimately wanted. That is game over for Phil and the gang. Have a nice Xmas everyone 🙂

    • Will be so excited to see how the law deals with “persons unknown” in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998. 2018 will be an interesting year methinks.

      To each and everyone on Drill or Drop and especially Ruth and Paul. Hope you all have a great Christmas and a well earned rest. Look forward to more great articles in 2018.

      “There is some good in this world, and it’s worth fighting for.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien

      Be strong and positive. Hope is what keeps the universe safe. Y’all take care now.

  7. Got to love the names of some of these officials … Mr ‘Justice’ Morgan (Judge) and, earlier, Mr ‘Brine’ (Minister with fracking waste under his remit). hehe.

    I never imagined these two winning their case, not that they’re in the wrong, but when it comes to ‘rights’ corporation law will have more power and momentum, precedents, and money behind it to carry the day. Where there are grey areas and a lack of precedents you have to abandon assumptions about law being about morality. What is needed I think is some way of dealing with and modifying law to recognise natural morality in a new way – to see nature in fact as having corporate status, as a legal ‘entity’ or ‘personality’ with it’s own rights. This is what is happening in some parts of the world now and I’ve put a few links below about successful and emerging cases. After all it is about patches of the natural world, earth or environment that the people or protestors are really wanting to protect because it has no way of protecting itself.

    The most striking case of this kind, and most relevant here, is how the mayor of Pittsburgh (of all places – in one of the most fracked States in the USA) has managed to mobilise this new kind of law to protect his city from encroachment by fracking. Their strategy was “to declare a right to clean air, water, and soil for all the citizens of Pennsylvania. Under this rights of nature strategy, to allow fracking would threaten that right, so the city would have ban it. The approach took environmental protection out of a regulatory realm — which allowed fracking to occur but under certain rules — and moved it to a legal realm — which argued fracking violated their legal rights to clean air and water and should therefore be banned.” This has worked for the city so far.

    Other instances of this model are emerging. The last link I offer is to a law firm working in England that would almost certainly be interested in developing expertise in this way.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s