Key Facts
- •London City Airport sought a precautionary injunction against Persons Unknown planning environmental protests.
- •The planned protests involved potential trespass and nuisance at the airport.
- •Just Stop Oil and other groups were identified as potential protestors, with evidence of planned disruptive actions.
- •The application was made without notice due to concerns about irreparable harm and the risk of protests preceding the hearing.
- •The airport is private land, and the injunction covered specific areas as shown on plans.
- •Previous protests at London City Airport and other airports were cited as evidence of the threat.
- •The injunction was granted for a period of five years with provisions for annual review.
Legal Principles
Legal basis for 'newcomer injunctions' and relevant legal principles in protest cases.
Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2024] 2 WLR 45
Requirements for applications made without notice against Persons Unknown.
CPR r 25.3(1), Human Rights Act 1998, s 12(2)(b), Wolverhampton Travellers [140]-[143]
Engagement of Convention rights in relation to protests on private land.
High Speed Two (HS2) Limited v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2360 (KB), [131], Re Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2023] AC 505; Birmingham City Council v Afsar [2019] EWHC 1560 (KB)
Test for precautionary relief: imminent and real risk of harm.
Ineos Upstream Ltd v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 100, [34(1)], Morgan J [2017] EWHC 2945 (Ch), [88], High Speed Two (HS2) Limited [99]-[101]
Factors to consider when granting 'newcomer injunctions' in protest contexts.
Valero, [58], Multiplex, [11]
Consideration of byelaws as a means of control in place of an injunction.
Wolverhampton Travellers, [216]-[217]
Outcomes
Precautionary injunction granted to restrain anticipated protests.
There was a real and imminent risk of harm, including potential injury and death, to protestors and others. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, and damages were not an adequate remedy. The relevant legal tests for newcomer injunctions were met.