Campaigners claim victory over UKOG injunction

Opponents of a High Court injunction against protests at oil sites in southern England are celebrating news that it is being scaled back.

UKOG’s opponents celebrating the announcement on scaling back the injunction. Photos: Used with the owners’ consents

Five women from Sussex and Surrey, including the actor Sue Jameson, had expected to continue a legal challenge next week to the interim injunction awarded to UK Oil & Gas (UKOG).

But yesterday (4 February 2021), UKOG announced that it was removing the injunction’s ban on slow walking, a much-used protest tactic against onshore oil and gas companies. It also said the remaining terms of the injunction, on obstructing the site entrance and trespass, would now apply only to its site at Horse Hill in Surrey.

Campaigners against the injunction described the news as a “massive victory”. UKOG said the revised order would help protect the company and would not “prevent or limit peaceful protest”.

“Most expansive injunction so far”

The injunction, first issued in March 2018, attracted opposition from campaigners against onshore drilling. They described it as the most expansive so far sought by the industry and based on “exaggerated and oppressive claims”.

The original application, which contained more than 900 pages of exhibits and 500 videos, was against “persons unknown” and applied to two sites in West Sussex (Markwells Wood and Broadford Bridge) and UKOG’s Guildford headquarters, as well as Horse Hill.

In March 2020, UKOG sought to add more than 100 individuals to the injunction but failed to identify most of them by name. It was argued that few, if any, had been involved in unlawful activities. In April 2020, the company tried unsuccessfully to bar the five women from bringing their legal challenge.

The High Court has twice scaled back the scope of the injunction (details here). Two other legal challenges have successfully removed injunctions against persons unknown and slow walking protests. A five-day trial is still expected in February 2022 to decide whether UKOG’s interim injunction should be made final.

“Massive victory”

Lorraine Inglis, of the campaign network, the Weald Action Group, said today:

“This is a massive victory.

“We’ve been fighting for three years to cut down this draconian injunction – at every court hearing we’ve made progress. Now all that’s left is a set of narrow restrictions relating to trespass and access to Horse Hill in line with a standard injunction.

“It’s an excellent result. UKOG are trying to save face by pretending this has something to do with the COVID pandemic. It hasn’t – it’s all to do with their unacceptable injunction.”

Ann Stewart, one of the five legal challengers to the injunction and a member of the campaign group, Markwells Wood Watch, said:

“The injunction started off covering four sites, including Markwells Wood which had no planning permission for oil drilling. And we’ve now managed to get rid of Broadford Bridge, where nothing is going on.

“This has been an abuse of the injunction process which should only be used to prevent real and immediate threats of unlawful action. UKOG have basically had an injunction over an empty field for two and a half years.”

Another challenger, Natasha Doane, of the Leith Hill campaign in Surrey, said:

“Wide-reaching injunctions aimed at persons unknown have had their day.

“Companies cannot buy their way through the courts. The freedom to express your views is a right that shapes democracy and enables current pressing issues to be addressed. The implications of fossil fuel extraction are too severe to be silenced as we search for solutions to the climate crisis and mass extinctions.”

  • Next week’s planned court hearing is expected to go ahead on Tuesday because the changes to the order have to be confirmed.

3 replies »

  1. Well, as it is UKOG adjusting the injunction, perhaps they want to claim “victory”, as well?

    So, everyone should be happy.

    Meanwhile, the BBC show the costs of Contempt of Court, and the limits are defined for all to see. Taking a bit of time, but getting there.

    • Martin Collyer Drill or drop & the protestors all seem very jubilant, but it looks a very hollow victory to me!

      Maybe the claim of far reaching & draconian injunction will still apply but not in the current form so be careful what you wish for as you may have got what you wished for but not what you wanted!

      Maybe we will see a new injunctions requests come before the courts to prevent the slow walking & hampering of the road network leading to oil sites but this time from the transportation companies not UKOG as the product transport is sub contracted to them & there responsibility!

      The Horse Hill UKOG injunction now covers the trespass on the site & the blocking of access though the site gates & lorry surfing which I believe is enough for UKOG’s purpose.

      Now that the new production transportation contracts are in place it should be for the oil delivery contractors to negotiate any requirements to do with the transportation of oil & if they need a injunction to uphold the services that they supply they can apply to the courts themselves?

      UKOG are only the product producer on site if the protestors are protesting against oil & petroleum products transportation on the national highway that is a different issue completely & there are national laws & securities covering this well regulated industry which I am sure will equally apply to petrol being safely delivered to a petrol stations & refineries.

      Why they should be protesting specifically about national petroleum products transportation specifically at Horse Hill is another issue?

      Let’s see if the transportation companies need to take out there own injunctions over the national highways but there responsibility is to ensure the safe transportation of products within costs.

      From memory the last time supplies & transportation of oil or petroleum products were hampered & the police did not have sufficient powers to control the situation the British army we brought in to ensure safe passage.

  2. THey are only tweaking it as there is no need for parts to be in it as existing laws and the police cover what has been removed at the companies request. You forgot to mention that bit Ruth!!!!!

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