Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1201 (KB)
Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Anor.
3 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1038 (KB)
High Court
A London transportation authority won a court order stopping Insulate Britain protesters from blocking roads. The judge said the protests caused too much disruption and danger, even though the protesters were expressing important views. The order will last five years.
Key Facts
- •Transport for London (TfL) sought a final injunction against 129 Insulate Britain (IB) protesters and persons unknown.
- •The protests involved blocking roads, often gluing themselves to the surface.
- •The injunction covers 34 strategically important roads in London.
- •Many defendants had participated in protests by related groups like Just Stop Oil (JSO).
- •No defendants filed defenses, but some offered undertakings.
- •IB protests aimed to pressure the government to fund social housing insulation and create a national plan for home retrofits.
- •The court considered TfL's claims of trespass, private nuisance, and public nuisance.
- •The court also considered the defendants' rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Legal Principles
Trespass to land, private nuisance, public nuisance
NHL v IB, HS2
Requirements for a final anticipatory injunction
Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown, NHL v IB (CA)
Articles 10 and 11 ECHR (freedom of expression and assembly)
DPP v Ziegler, City of London Corp v Samede
Injunctions against persons unknown
Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Persons Unknown, Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown
Outcomes
Final injunction granted against 129 named defendants and persons unknown.
TfL established a strong probability of imminent infringement of rights, and the harm would be grave and irreparable. The court balanced the protesters' rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR against the need to protect public safety and the free use of highways. Less restrictive means were deemed unavailable.
Third-party disclosure order withdrawn by claimant.
The claimant intended a 'two-strike' approach (serving injunction after first arrest only) which reduced the need for this order.
Alternative service allowed via email and physical posting.
To ensure those who might breach the injunction are aware of it. The court considered the tension between this and the principle in Barking and Dagenham that knowing breach suffices.