UKOG seeks injunction to ban protests that aim to damage its business

170720 BB Jono Houston2

Opponents of UKOG’s oil epxloration site outside the Broadford Bridge site in West Sussex. Photo used with the author’s permission

The exploration company, UK Oil and Gas, has applied for a wide-reaching injunction against anti-drilling protests at sites in West Sussex and Surrey.

Like several previous applications by onshore oil and gas companies, it is brought against “person’s unknown and seeks to prohibit specified actions, some of which are illegal.

But for the first time, it includes a clause to prevent opponents “combining by lawful means” with the main intention of hurting the company’s economic interests.

The injunction aims to cover oil exploration sites at Broadford Bridge and Markwells Wood in West Sussex and Horse Hill in Surrey. The order would also cover UKOG’s offices in Guildford.

171202 Horse Hill eviction composite

Eviction of protesters at UKOG’s Horse Hill site, 2 December 2017. Photos used with authors’ permission

UKOG has designated what it calls “exclusion zones” on sections of road outside the site entrances, where it aims to restrict campaign activity against oil and gas developments. It also defines various actions, including taking photographs of contractors, as “unlawful”.

The application accuses protesters of “a wanton disregard of private property” and of attempting to intimidate supply companies from withdrawing their services at oil and gas sites.

The company said in a statement:

“Recent incidents have compelled UKOG to take this serious legal action to protect itself, its supply chain and landlords from threats and unlawful conduct from activists, who are intent on preventing us from going about our lawful business.

“The injunction does not prevent anyone effectively exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

“The Injunction provides the High Court’s protection from unlawful actions such as trespass on UKOG’s land, unlawful interference with access to UKOG land, obstruction of the highway (including by slow-walking, lock-ons and lorry surfing) and obstructing or interfering with those suppliers working for the Company.”

If the injunction were confirmed anyone who breached it could be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.

The policing monitoring group, Netpol, today accused UKOG of trying to stifle opposition and severely restrict the right to freedom of assembly. (See Reaction section for full statement)

A web link to electronic versions of the application have been distributed by social media to individuals and anti-fracking groups.

The application is due to be heard at the High Court on Monday 19 March.

UKOG is now the fourth oil and gas company to apply for an injunction against protesters. Cuadrilla, Europa and INEOS have each been granted orders, which have been increasingly wide-ranging.


UKOG injunction extract.jpg

Extract from the UKOG injunction application

The application comprises 42 documents and more than 50 videos. There are more than 900 pages of exhibits, which include online news reports, some repeated several times, along with social media posts, photographs, lease agreements, licences, consents and legal orders at other sites. The documents can be seen by using this Dropbox link

As well as UKOG, the claimants seeking the injunction comprise its subsidiary Kimmeridge Oil and Gas, and partner companies Magellan Petroleum (UK) Limited, Horse Hill Developments Ltd and UKOG (GB) Limited.

The order, if approved, would apply to “person’s unknown who are protestors against the exploration and/or extractor [sic] of mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon or natural gas by the claimant(s)” who are undertaking six different acts.

These include:

“Combining together using lawful means where the predominant intention is to injure the claimant’s economic interest”.

A spokesperson for UKOG said that acts which may be lawful are converted to unlawful behaviour if people act together with the predominant intention of injuring the company.

The draft order also seeks to outlaw:

  • Entering the sites
  • Obstructing the company and its contractors on the highway
  • Preventing access to the sites
  • Committing offences including obstructing the highway, criminal damage, interfering with a motor vehicle and compelling a person from abstaining from a legal action

If approved, the injunction would prevent a range of campaign techniques, including slow walking and lorry surfing.

Other prohibited activities, which are described in one document as “unlawful”, include photographing employees and contractors or publishing negative comments about suppliers with the intention of targeting them in a campaign.

Some of the actions referred to in the draft order are criminal offences. But some have been the subject of court cases where protesters have been acquitted, while others have not been included in previous injunctions.

170710 Broadford Bridge BBAG4

Protest outside Broadford Bridge exploration site in what would be in an exclusion zone. Photo: Broadford Bridge Action Group

On the exclusion zones, the draft documents are confusing. One seeks to prohibit protesters from:

“Demonstrating in furtherance of the campaign at the sites or in the vicinity of the sites”

Demonstrating is defined as:

“carrying out any activity as part of or in furtherance of the campaign or protest against the lawful use and/or development of the sites.”

Another document qualifies this by saying:

“save that no more than 6 protestors may at any one time demonstrate within the Exclusion Zone provided that no obstruction or other act occurs as prohibited in this order”.

No one was available to clarify this at UKOG or its solicitors, Hill Dickinson LLP.


170710 Broadford Bridge BBAG2A spokesperson for Broadford Bridge Action Group said:

‘”This attempted action by UKOG is an affront to democracy. Local people like us have a right to voice our genuine concerns about the potential impact of unconventional oil exploration on our communities and water supplies. Trying to use the High Court to silence debate and stop lawful activity is in no one’s interests and could fracture our society beyond repair.’
“This comes at a time when (buried under that announcement the other day about housing planning) the government instructed council planners to look favourably on oil and gas developments. Meanwhile a government inquiry closes on March 15th asking whether all planning for oil and gas should be taken away from local authorities and decided at the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol and ultimately then by central government.
“The inquiry (from the Communities and Local Government Committee) also asks whether all permitting of oil and gas activity should be done by one central body. (Currently it is split between the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Oil and Gas Authority, as well as local councils for Planning permission.)
“All these moves will make it easier and quicker for the oil and gas industry to get planning permission to drill wells across our landscape – because the geology they are now targeting needs a lot of wells to tap it commercially. This is the latest in a string of changes to law, regulation and planning guidance that facilitate the onward march of onshore oil and gas drilling.”


Kevin Blowe, of the policing monitoring network, Netpol, said:

“This latest interim injunction is another attempt by the onshore oil and gas industry to stifle opposition and severely restrict the right to freedom of assembly.

“The sweeping nature of the injunction is extraordinary. By seeking to prevent any interference with UKOG’s “economic interests” – a term that could mean almost anything – the company seems to suggest that the only “acceptable” protests are those that have no cost impact on its business and no effect on its share price.

“Anything else risks the potential threat of expensive legal action against local campaigners, even if they are “combining together using lawful means”, something that is a fair description of how every campaign group has ever operated.

“We have put campaigners in Surrey and Sussex in touch with experienced lawyers and are looking to provide support for initial legal advice through our Activists Legal Action Fund“.

Balcombe resident, Kathryn McWhirter, said:

“Local communities feel bullied and oppressed, by our government and by the oil and gas companies. We have a legal right to peaceful protest. We have a right to campaign against industrial activities that are to us clearly detrimental to the environment, to human health and to the climate. Our regulators, planners and councillors who issue permits for these oil sites seem too politically driven, too under-resourced or too afraid of being sued. Someone has to take a stand. 

Communities do not want oil drilling, whether it involves fracking or acidising or not. We do not need more onshore gas, we certainly do not need more onshore oil. So much damage will be done. Acidising and/or fracking will require a very large number of wells across our landscapes.
“Labour has pledged to ban fracking. Yet Conservative planning committees in the South East blindly follow their party’s line and condemn us to accept the oil industry into our villages and countryside. We are defending our health and our environment, our planet and generations to come. Protest is our human right.”
Keith Taylor 170720 Jono Houston

Keith Taylor outside the Broadford Bridge site. Photo: Office of Keith Taylor

Keith Taylor, Green Party MEP for south east England:

“This is an absolutely outrageous move by a firm that has no social licence for its environmentally-destructive drilling operations and, instead, is seeking a draconian injunction to bludgeon local people’s right to peaceful and lawful protest. It is worth remembering that peaceful and legal protest is just that; peaceful and legal.

“In a free and democratic country, a company’s economic interests should never supplant citizens’ fundamental human rights. This injunction is not only practically unenforceable it is also chillingly anti-democratic. It presents an obvious and clear breach of the Human Rights Act.

“I offer my wholehearted support to those residents and campaigners now forced to muster the legal support necessary to ensure this challenge to our civil liberties is rejected out of hand. I would urge anybody who cares about the health of British democracy and human rights to do the same.”

“£100,000s spent on security”

Stephen Sanderson DrillOrDropsmall

Stephen Sanderson, UKOG Executive Chairman. Photo: DrillOrDrop

In a witness statement, UKOG’s Executive Chairman, Stephen Sanderson, said the company had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on security at the sites.

He said the bill at Broadford Bridge from August 2016-November 2017 was £542,000. The estimated cost for security at the site for January 2018 was £64,000.

At Horse Hill, Mr Sanderson said security costs during drilling in 2014 were £450,000 and during flow testing in 2016 they were £122,000. The security budget for 2018 was £636,000, he said.

The Markwells Wood site, on the West Sussex-Hampshire border, has no planning permission in force and there is no reference to security costs at this site.

Mr Sanderson said:

“protesters do not discriminate between fracking companies and conventional oil & gas exploration companies”

Referring to a visit by opponents to UKOG’s Guildford offices in July 2017, Mr Sanderson added:

“This incident highlights the wanton disregard that some of these protesters have to private property rights, whether it is trespassing on our private operational land or trespassing on our office premises.”

“Targeting the supply chain”

Horse Hill Protests

“Slow walking” lorries outside the Horse Hill site in Surrey. David Burr/Alamy Live News

In another witness statement, James Court, of UKOG’s consultant, Eclipse Security, said:

“Over the past 12 months, it has become a tactic of anti-fracking protesters to target the operators supply chain in an attempt to disrupt their businesses.”

Mr Court said his company had worked for Europa and INEOS Upstream and monitored protests across the country.

He added:

“It is clearly the object of the protesters to attempt to intimidate those companies (such as haulage companies, fencing companies and skip hire companies) into withdrawing from their supply operations.

“Unless stopped, this form of protest against suppliers and sub-contractors will continue.”

In their witness statements, Mr Sanderson and the company’s solicitor, Kevin Lee, both quoted a sentence from a six-page letter by the Lancashire Assistant Chief Constable, Terry Woods. This was written in September 2017 to Ken Cronin, Chief Executive of the industry body, UK Onshore Oil and Gas.

Mr Woods said:

“Whilst I believe the majority of protestors are there to peacefully demonstrate there are others who resort to criminality and utilise a variety of tactics and methods which cause significant disruption to the community and operators.”

Mr Lee said:

“the scale of this problem cannot be underestimated. [sic]”

Updated 7/3/2018 with the addition of a statement from UKOG, small amendments to the headline and opening text and the addition of the point that some actions mentioned in the draft order have been the subject of court cases where protesters have been acquitted. Also updated to add quotes from Kathryn McWhirter and Keith Taylor MEP

70 replies »

  1. Not needed in UK PhilipP. We have a different solution-check the title for this report. So much more sophisticated and so much better for employment.

    • I used to have an Aunt May, no relation to our glorious leader i might add, who would just chatter all the time about anything and everything? From the moment she met us at the door through tea and biscuits and throughout any conversation, regardless of what it was, Aunt May would talk and talk and talk ad infinitum over the price of tea, the state of the garden next door, the neighbours dog, how far it was to the park and who she met, and no doubt talked to them incessantly.

      The odd thing was that no matter what we said, even asking her a direct question she would just keep on chattering away regardless? Eventually she did say an answer but by that time we had lost the thread and the heart to continue?

      She passed away about five years ago this month, well into her nineties, when we went to the funeral it was the only time i ever knew her to be silent? though i expect there is a place up there somewhere, where she still chats away about anything and everything? the colour of the clouds, the squeaking of the pearly gates, the flapping of the angels wings?

      I wonder what made me think of that?

      What was the subject again? i think i hear Aunt May again?

      • …. very sorry to hear about your auntie may phil
        at least whoever it is reminds you of her is helping to keep the memory of your auntie may alive

  2. They have a right to protest but UKOG has a duty to it’s investors not to take unnecessary risks with these investments such that they may loose all their money?? This is just a gamble there is not yet any proof that gas/oil will be found & even if some is it is not so likely to be in economic amounts, the UK Geology is very different to USA. I would advise all these investors to be very wary of these cowboy outfits.

    • They have a right to protest, but not to break the law. Political protests, however, are made at the ballot box, not by a crowd of yobs jeering at a factory gate. They have a right to protest, but not to trespass. One must always reverse law breaking and imagine your reaction if it happened to you, or on your property. The law should be enforced, because if it is not then where we thought we had rights we will find that we have none, yob law will have superseded it

      • Vernon, I’d be interested in your view on e.g. slow walking protest. That is not breaking the law, and on a public highway, not private property.

        Shouldn’t the protesters right to use the highway be enforced, because otherwise where we thought we had rights we will find that we have none. This injunction is seeking to stop people from doing something they are currently legally entitled to. I agree that the law should be enforced e.g. trespass, criminal damage etc. But this could make it unlawful to wear a yellow t-shirt or sing a song. Dissidents who were sent to Gulags were yobs, hooligans and vandals – because any protest was treated that way.

        Do you support or oppose an injunction which makes it illegal for YOU to do what you may lawfully do now? That is what this injunction would do if it was granted by the High Court.

        • If I & a few others “slow walk” in a busy road causing long traffic jams, preventing the public getting about its business, potentially threatening life by blocking emergency services, is there really no law to stop us? Do the police just look on?

          • If you slow walk on carriageway when there is separate footway (as is generally the case with busy roads), that is different matter from if the highway is for both vehicular and foot traffic. In the latter case a foot user has the right to use the highway. Other road users have to accept that – just as when going behind a tractor, bicycle or horse riders. Potentially holding up emergency services is not the same as actually doing so, which can indeed be an offence. It would be an offence to cause a breach of the peace. Hence possibly police might look on. If other road users get frustrated and breach the peace because of this, then it is they who commit the offence, not the pedestrian acting lawfully.

            It is an offence for a cyclist not to be considerate to other road users, but not so for pedestrians. Vehicles generally have to give way for pedestrians.

            If it was against the law, the company wouldn’t need an injunction. They are seeking an injunction to stop you and everyone else doing what we are lawfully entitled to do. They can’t get Parliament to change the law, so they want to try to get a judge to take away those rights that we have in English law.

            Maybe there is case for changing the law (I wouldn’t be against such a change), but that should be done democratically, not judicially.

            (And any injunction ought to be for specific persons for specific cases, with those persons individually given notice and able to contest the injunction sought).

            If we start going this route, companies might ask for injunctions to stop people growing their own vegetables because that is an activity that hurts their profits. If you think that sounds outrageous, then consider that legally there is little difference between that and the injunction that is now being sought.

  3. So if the protest campaign were to encourage people from London etc. to come and have a day out at Leith Hill to support preserving the area, anyone visiting the area would be carrying out an activity which furthers the protest. Wow. If the High Court allow this, I’d be shocked.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s