Olympic Delivery Authority v Persons Unknown & Ors

Where protest activity interferes with a landholder’s Convention rights, the court must balance those rights against the protesters’ rights to freedom of expression and assembly. An injunction is justified where it is necessary and proportionate to protect the landholder’s use and enjoyment of the land. Such relief should be framed so that it does not prevent lawful and peaceful protest which does not interfere with those rights. The interests of other users of the affected area may also be relevant. The court may continue the injunction for the period reasonably required to protect the landholder’s position, subject to trial or further order.

The Olympic Delivery Authority, as exclusive licensee of land at Leyton Marsh, sought continuation of an interim injunction restraining protest-related entry, obstruction and interference with access to a temporary Olympic basketball practice facility. The injunction had initially been granted for fourteen days after a short-notice hearing.

Following further obstruction, arrests and criminal proceedings involving several defendants, the Authority sought continuation until trial, further order or expiry of its licence on 15 October 2012. The central issue was whether continuation of the injunction was necessary and proportionate having regard to the Authority’s property rights and the protesters’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention.

1. Continuation granted. The injunction was continued until trial, further order, or 15 October 2012 if earlier.
2. The protesters’ activities engaged their rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Those rights were not unqualified and had to give way where necessary and proportionate to protect the Olympic Delivery Authority’s rights as exclusive licensee under Article 1 of the First Protocol.
3. The appropriate approach was to balance the competing Convention rights. The injunction was necessary and proportionate because it restrained obstruction of access and interference with the construction works, while leaving open lawful and peaceful protest which did not interfere with the Authority’s enjoyment of the land.
4. The court also took into account the incidental obstruction caused to local residents and visitors to the Park. The continuing evidence of obstruction, together with the limited period available to complete and hand over the facility, supported continuation of the relief.
5. A shorter fixed period was inappropriate because little was likely to change before handover or the Olympic Games and expiry would probably generate a further application. The selected end date was therefore until trial, further order or expiry of the licence, whichever occurred first.