Supermarket wins farmer protest injunction

Tom Cottrell and Irene Camarena Brines of Pinsent Masons regularly advise corporates in dealing with the threat of protestor activity and in securing urgent injunctive relief to restrain any unlawful conduct.

Cottrell said that this is an area of law which has evolved significantly over recent years and that this case is a helpful illustration as to how the Courts of England and Wales deal with protest injunctions, including the common practical issues which arise, in claims which are invariably directed at ‘persons unknown’.

“Injunctions are powerful tools which allow businesses to safeguard their staff and protect their operations from disruptive actions which may be taken by protesters and other groups,” said Camarena Brines.

In this case, Morrisons applied to the High Court of England and Wales for an interim injunction to restrain unlawful agricultural protests at its distribution centres and on surrounding access roads. Morrisons made the application following protests that took place at its distribution centres on 10 January 2025, under the banner of a group known as “Farmers to Action”, where tractors were strategically placed to block access to and from the distribution centres.

The action was taken in the context of wider protests by farmers and members of the agricultural community over various issues, including changes to UK inheritance tax rules, which are due to come into effect in April 2026, as well as publication of the government’s 25-year farming roadmap and the pricing of food.

The High Court granted Morrisons’ application and has subsequently extended its effect – the injunction will now not be reviewed until after 30 April 2025, according to the latest court order issued in the case. Consideration at the next hearing will be given to whether it is necessary for the injunction to be extended again, potentially for up to a year.

Camarena Brines said: “The injunction granted by the court in this case is clearly suitable as its purpose is not to prevent protesters from exercising their freedom of expression or freedom of assembly. The injunction is focused and carefully targeted to prevent obstructions to access points to distribution centres, which are an important part of the UK’s infrastructure. There are further safeguards, such as the geographical and temporal limits of the injunction, as well as the defendants’ liberty to apply to vary or discharge the injunction, which make this a reasonable and proportionate order for the court to make.”

According to Cottrell, there are important practical considerations for businesses to keep in mind when considering how to respond to protests and if pursuing an injunction.

“Social media can be a valuable source in terms of identifying the risk of potential activity by protesters,” Cottrell said. “Comments, posts, and videos posted online can give advance notice of coordinated plans to conduct disruptive activities, following which companies can assess the merits of seeking injunctive relief. Indeed, such evidence is often key to showing the court that there is a real and immediate risk of harm if an injunction is not granted, as was the case in the application sought by the Morrisons companies.”

“It is also important to take steps to identify the defendants. For example, the defendants may be part of a group or a members’ association. There is an ongoing duty to join individual defendants to the proceedings if known, or if they are identified after the application is made. If they have not been identified, the class of ‘persons unknown’ must be articulated as precisely as possible, in plain language, by reference to the torts which are to be prohibited. The class of ‘persons unknown’ should be understandable to those who may be subject to it,” he said.

“Further, it is crucial the applicant takes steps to bring the application to the attention of those individuals who may be subject to it in good time before the hearing. The applicant will be required to give the court a full account of any such steps, which may include: sending an email attaching the application documents to an address which is associated with a particular protesters’ group; publishing the application documents on the company’s website; affixing notices and copies of the documents at the relevant sites, as in the case of the application sought by Morrisons; and/or making use of other means of communication online such as social media,” he added.

In some cases, businesses may decide to file an injunction application on a ‘without notice’ basis, meaning that those targeted by the injunction are not notified about the planned action. In this scenario, applicants need to be aware of their duties to the court, Camarena Brines said.

“If the application is made without notice, the applicant is under an ongoing duty to provide full and frank disclosure to the court of the facts, matters and arguments which might affect the court’s decision whether to grant the injunction,” she said. “This includes making the court aware of any defences which may be available to the defendants or any information which may suggest that there is no immediate threat or risk of harm by the defendants.”

Camarena Brines said that businesses targeted or likely to be targeted by protest should actively engage with their stakeholders and adopt a pragmatic and transparent approach with the public.