Background
The claimant, Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Extensions Projco Limited, is developing extensions to two existing offshore wind farms off the Norfolk coast — a nationally significant infrastructure project authorised by a Development Consent Order made in April 2024. Before construction can begin, the claimant must complete a series of non-invasive geophysical surveys of a small nearshore area (approximately 4.84 km²) to locate unexploded ordnance, map sediment distribution, and identify chalk outcroppings near a protected marine conservation zone. Roughly 47% of those surveys had been completed when fishing gear — primarily shellfish pots and gill nets with floating ropes attached — rendered further work unsafe by entanglement risk to survey vessels. The claimant’s fishing liaison officer identified more than 100 “ends” of gear within the survey area as of 11 June 2026, the volume having grown over preceding weeks.
The claimant had been seeking to negotiate voluntarily with local fishing organisations, including the North Norfolk Fishermen’s Society and the Wells and District Fishermen’s Association, since December 2025, following industry guidance from the Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group (FLOWW). Those negotiations, including a mediation on 2 June 2026, were unsuccessful. The key sticking point was the appropriate level of compensation for fishermen asked to temporarily relocate their gear. With a critical internal deadline of 1 August 2026 to complete survey data — and a cascading programme leading to a government 2030 offshore wind target — the claimant applied for injunctive relief. An initial hearing on 12 June 2026 was adjourned by HHJ Bertodano because of concerns over notice, identification of affected fishermen, and the adequacy of pre-action engagement.
After additional steps were taken — including affixing notices at coastal signposts, serving documents on seven fishing vessels, and filing further witness evidence from the fishing liaison officer and consents manager — the matter returned before Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC on 17 June 2026. None of the defendants appeared or were represented. Three fishing operators who had self-identified — James Chambers, his son Callum Chambers, and their company J&S Shellfish Ltd — were joined as named defendants alongside the North Norfolk Fishermen’s Society, its chairman John Davies, and the “persons unknown” first defendant.
The Court’s Holding
Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC granted an interim injunction on 17 June 2026 (with reasons handed down 19 June 2026) requiring the survey area to be kept clear of fishing gear and other obstructions for the duration of the surveys, until a return date of 1 July 2026. The court was satisfied that notice had been sufficiently given following the adjourned hearing, that the further evidence adequately addressed HHJ Bertodano’s concerns, and that all defendants — including the newly joined parties — had had adequate opportunity to respond.
The court applied the legal framework set out by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 for injunctions against “newcomer” persons unknown, alongside the conventional American Cyanamid test for interim relief and the Canada Goose principles permitting injunctions to restrict otherwise lawful activity where no more proportionate remedy exists. Following the closely analogous precedent of Martin Spencer J in Orsted Hornsea Protect Three (UK) Ltd [2021] EWHC 977 (QB) — which involved the same second and third defendants — the court balanced two sets of competing lawful rights: the claimant’s rights to navigate and carry out nationally authorised survey work against the fishermen’s common law and public right to fish. On the facts, the claimant’s rights were found to outweigh those of the fishermen, given the limited geographical and temporal scope of the restriction and the availability of financial compensation.
The court also accepted public nuisance as a viable cause of action, on the basis that persons who place or leave objects obstructing a claimant’s reasonable exercise of public navigation rights may commit that tort, particularly where the obstruction impedes work of significant public importance. The injunction as granted included a cross-undertaking in damages from the claimant, a provision authorising relocation of gear found within the survey area, and express liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order.
Key Takeaways
- Courts may grant injunctions restricting otherwise lawful fishing activity to allow nationally significant offshore energy surveys to proceed, following the balancing approach endorsed in Orsted Hornsea and the Canada Goose line of authority, where the geographic and temporal scope is narrow and compensation is offered.
- The Wolverhampton criteria for newcomer injunctions — compelling need, procedural protections, full disclosure, and territorial/temporal constraints — apply to offshore energy disputes and require developers to demonstrate genuine, sustained pre-action engagement with the fishing community before relief will be granted.
- Public nuisance extends to interference with the public right of navigation at sea, and those who place objects obstructing a claimant with a reasonable need to navigate a particular course may be liable even in open coastal waters.
- Injunctions may properly bind a mixed group of identified named defendants and persons unknown in the same order, provided named defendants retain equivalent procedural protections (including a return date) to those they would have received in an ordinary interim injunction application.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for the rapidly expanding UK offshore wind sector, where developers must conduct seabed surveys in coastal fishing grounds before construction can begin. It confirms that courts will intervene to protect time-critical survey programmes linked to nationally significant infrastructure — including programmes tied to the UK government’s 2030 clean energy targets — using the flexible equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions even against lawful competing activity, provided proper notice and compensation mechanisms are in place. It reinforces the precedent set in Orsted Hornsea and clarifies how the Wolverhampton newcomer-injunction framework applies outside the traveller-encampment context.
For practitioners, the case illustrates the procedural vigilance courts will exercise before granting such relief: the initial application was adjourned for inadequate notice and engagement, and the injunction was only granted after the claimant undertook additional steps to identify affected fishermen and provide fuller evidence of its liaison efforts. Developers and their advisers should treat the FLOWW engagement guidance as a practical prerequisite for injunctive relief, and should move early to identify individual vessel operators rather than relying solely on fishing associations whose membership may not cover all those active in a survey area.