Key Facts
- •Heathrow Airport Limited sought a precautionary injunction against Persons Unknown planning environmental protests.
- •The planned protests involved actions like cutting fences, gluing to runways, and disrupting airport operations.
- •Just Stop Oil (JSO) and similar groups were identified as potential perpetrators.
- •The Airport is a designated Critical National Infrastructure site, and the protests posed risks of serious harm, financial losses, and significant public inconvenience.
- •The application was made without notice to the defendants due to concerns about the risk of irreparable harm if notice was given.
- •The injunction covered a specified area of the airport shown on provided plans.
Legal Principles
Legal basis for 'newcomer injunctions' and relevant legal principles.
Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2024] 2 WLR 45
Test for precautionary relief: imminent and real risk of harm.
Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 100, [34(1)] (Court of Appeal) and Morgan J [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch), [88]
Factors to consider in protest context for injunctive relief.
Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB); Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 239 (KB)
Injunctive relief to restrain anticipated trespass.
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Meier [2009] 1 WLR 2780; Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton & ors [2000] 1 QB 133
Requirements for 'Persons Unknown' injunctions: clear identification of conduct, defined geographical boundaries, clear terms, matching pleaded claims, temporal limits.
Multiple cases cited in sections 58-61
Consideration of byelaws as a means of control.
Wolverhampton Travellers, [216]-[217]
Outcomes
The court granted the precautionary injunction.
The court found a real and imminent risk of serious harm, including injury and death, substantial financial loss, and significant public disruption. The court determined that the defendants had no legitimate right to trespass on the airport and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured granting the injunction. The existence of byelaws was deemed insufficient to prevent the anticipated disruption.