Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Manchester Airport Plc & Ors v Persons Unknown

Three UK airports got court orders to stop people from protesting and disrupting flights. The judge said the airports needed protection because the planned protests were dangerous and could cause serious problems, even though the protesters have a right to protest. The court order will last for 12 months and can be reviewed.

Key Facts

  • Manchester Airport PLC and others sought injunctions against persons unknown planning disruptive protests at UK airports.
  • The defendants were an identifiable group intending to cause disruption at airports during peak summer travel.
  • The claimants own Manchester, Stansted, and East Midlands airports.
  • The application was made without notice to the defendants.
  • The injunctions sought covered land owned by the claimants, acknowledging complexities due to existing leases and licenses on that land.
  • The claimants argued that protests, even on non-owned portions of airport property, could spill over to areas where they held the right to possession.
  • The court considered relevant criminal offences (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Public Order Act 2023, aggravated trespass) and airport byelaws.
  • The court acknowledged the defendants' potential arguments, including their rights to protest under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Legal Principles

In injunction applications against persons unknown, there must be a compelling need for the injunction.

Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 and Valero Energy Limited v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB)

Claimants can seek injunctions covering land where they lack immediate right to possession if necessary for effective protection against trespass.

Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 and Valero Energy Limited v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB)

The court must balance the need for an injunction against potential interference with the defendants' human rights (Articles 10 and 11 ECHR).

Implicit in the judgment

Outcomes

Injunctions granted against persons unknown.

The court found a compelling need for injunctions due to the credible threat of disruptive protests, the significant consequences of such protests at airports (security risks, flight disruptions, financial repercussions), and the inadequacy of criminal law and byelaws to prevent the threatened actions.

Definition of persons unknown amended to include any relevant organisation.

To ensure effectiveness and encompass potential similar groups.

Injunctions reviewed after 12 months.

Reflects the nature of the threat and the sequential nature of the campaigns.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.