Heathrow Airport Ltd & Ors v Garman & Ors

An injunction restraining threatened protest activity may be granted where unlawful disruption of an airport is established and the relief is necessary and proportionate to protect lawful operations and the public. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires a proper evidential basis for apprehended harassment. Annoyance or inconvenience caused by protest activity does not necessarily amount to harassment. A representative action is inappropriate where members of an association have divergent interests. The court may restrain unnamed persons acting in concert with identified activists, provided the order is clear and preserves the protection in CPR 19.6(4)(b).

Heathrow Airport Ltd and its managing director sought interim injunctive relief against persons and organisations allegedly planning unlawful direct action during a climate camp near Heathrow. The claims relied on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, common-law trespass and nuisance, and airport byelaws. Representative orders had previously been made in respect of HACAN, AirportWatch, NoTRAG and Plane Stupid.

The court considered whether those organisations could properly be represented, whether the evidence established an apprehended breach of the 1997 Act, and whether relief based on trespass, nuisance and the byelaws was necessary and proportionate.

1. Representation. Under CPR 19.6, a representative action requires the represented persons to have the same interest. A divergence of views about the use of unlawful direct action creates a divergence of interests and makes representation inappropriate. The representation orders concerning HACAN, AirportWatch and NoTRAG were therefore discharged. The claim against those organisations was struck out. Plane Stupid had sufficient organisational characteristics, unanimity of purpose and suitable representatives, so its representative order was continued.
2. Protection from harassment. Because the hearing was final in substance, the court applied the higher standard appropriate to a final determination. An apprehended breach does not require previous conduct on two occasions, but it must have a proper evidential basis. The evidence of a possible blockade was insufficient, and there was no established history of harassment. Chambers v DPP and R v Jones were of limited assistance because they concerned materially different legislation. Annoyance and inconvenience may amount to harassment in some circumstances, but do not necessarily do so. The claim under the 1997 Act was dismissed.
3. Common law and byelaws. The intended action was not a lawful assembly merely communicating views. It was intended to disrupt airport operations and would interfere with the rights of large numbers of lawful users. The competing rights under articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR did not justify mass unlawful disruption. Given the serious risks to airport operations, policing resources, emergency access and security, injunctive relief was both necessary and proportionate. The balance of convenience also favoured relief.
4. Order. The injunction was confined to Heathrow Airport land, excluding land controlled by Transport for London and London Underground Ltd, and targeted persons acting as officers, activists or supporters of Plane Stupid and persons acting in concert with them to disrupt the airport. It prohibited entry, obstruction or interference with airport operations, and incitement, aid or abetment. Peaceful and lawful climate-camp activities were not restrained. Costs were ordered principally against the claimants in favour of HACAN, AirportWatch, NoTRAG, Ms Nicholson, Transport for London and London Underground Ltd.

First-instance decision. The application under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was rejected, but limited injunctive relief was granted on the basis of trespass, nuisance and airport byelaws.