Protests are part and parcel of British political tradition. However, it is also a reality that they may result in nuisance and trespass for property owners.  If you are the owner of a property in which a protest takes place, you do not know the identity of the protestors who are responsible for infringement of your rights. In such circumstances, the courts have recognised that in order for justice to be done it may be appropriate to allow a claimant to obtain an interim injunction against “persons unknown”. This type of injunction is known as the “newcomer injunction”.

 

Namecard for article - Frankie in English 1

 

There are two recent decisions, namely London City Airport Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2557 and Heathrow Airport v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2599, in which the court granted the injunctions against the persons unknown to restrain the protests.

 

In both cases, the environmental groups planned disruptive actions and campaigning against the airports. The claimants sought the injunctions to restrain the acts which constituted trespass and nuisance. The court satisfied that the requirements for such injunctive relief had been fulfilled and the newcomer injunctions were granted.

 

Principles deciding whether to grant a newcomer injunction

 

The legal principles governing newcomer injunction which were established in the decision Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45 were affirmed in these two decisions. In deciding whether to grant a newcomer injunction, the court will consider the principles of justice and equity and in particular the following :-

 

  • That equity provides a remedy where the other remedies available under the law are inadequate to vindicate or protect the rights in issues;
  • The equity looks to the substance rather than to the form;
  • That equity takes an essentially flexible approach to the formulation of a remedy; and
  • That equity has not been constrained by hard rules or procedure in fashioning a remedy to suit new circumstances.

 

In both of the airport cases, there is overlap between these two judgments as to the issues considered.

 

London City Airport decision

 

In London City Airport decision, the court considered that :

 

  • There was an imminent and real risk of harm from the threatened airport protests that justified precautionary relief;
  • The claimant established the causes of action in trespass and nuisance;
  • The balance of convenience and risk of grave injury favoured the grant of the injunction relief;
  • The protests were planned on private land where the unknown persons had no right to protest; and
  • An injunction was necessary as the byelaws are insufficient to deter the past airport protests.

 

Heathrow Airport decision

 

In the Heathrow airport case, the court considered that :

 

  • There was an imminent and real risk of the threatened harm from the protests;
  • The protests would constitute private and public nuisance;
  • The protests would be considered as trespass;
  • The legal tests for granting newcomer injunction were satisfied; and
  • Byelaws were insufficient to deter the protests.

 

Protest is not uncommon in UK. If a protest infringes your rights, newcomer injunction may be an option. Contact our litigation team today for further information.

 

Have questions? Get in touch today!

 

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

 

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

 

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

 

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.