Balfour Beatty Group Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors

An interim injunction may restrain protest activity where there is a serious issue to be tried in nuisance, damages are inadequate, and the injunction is proportionate under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

Protest remains within the scope of those rights even where it obstructs others, but deliberate physical obstruction may involve compulsion rather than persuasion and may carry less weight in the proportionality assessment. The court must assess the facts in their context, including the duration, frequency, extent and purpose of the obstruction, its effect on others, available alternative protest locations and the continuing ability to communicate views.

Balfour Beatty Group Limited sought interim injunctive relief against named individuals and persons unknown who regularly obstructed access to its compound serving the HS2 project. The claimant alleged private and public nuisance arising from interference with its private access way, the adjoining highway and its business operations.

The defendants relied on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler. The application raised issues concerning service, the proportionality of restraining protest, the adequacy of damages and the requirements for interim relief against persons unknown.

1. Service. The court approved alternative service under CPR rules 6.15 and 6.27. The claimant had taken practical steps reasonably expected to bring the proceedings and hearing to the defendants’ attention. This approach was consistent with Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited and Canada Goose UK Retail Limited v Persons Unknown.
2. Nuisance. The claimant had a serious issue to be tried, indeed a strong case, that regular obstruction of the Bellmouth, gates and Access Way constituted private and/or public nuisance. Substantial interference with a right of way may be actionable even where the obstruction occurs outside the land over which the easement runs. The court relied on West v Sharp and Wall v Collins.
3. Convention rights and proportionality. The proposed injunction engaged Articles 10 and 11 but pursued legitimate aims, including protecting property rights, lawful business and public safety. Applying the structured proportionality questions identified in Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler, the aim was sufficiently important, the injunction was rationally connected to it, and there was no less restrictive effective means.
4. The decisive question was fair balance. The protests were peaceful and sincerely held, but involved a continuing series of regular actions designed to disrupt work, rather than a single demonstration. Blocking the gates involved a high degree of compulsion and a low degree of persuasion. The injunction would prevent obstruction, not protest or communication of views, and would leave alternative locations available.
5. The court distinguished the factual circumstances in Ziegler. That decision did not provide a template for lawful protest, and proportionality remained fact-sensitive. The work disrupted had also been authorised by Parliament. Damages were inadequate because loss would be difficult to quantify and enforcement against the defendants was unlikely.
6. Persons unknown. The court adopted the procedural guidance in Canada Goose. The defendants were sufficiently identifiable and the prohibited acts could be defined clearly, geographically and temporally. An interim injunction was granted restraining obstruction or interference with use of the Bellmouth, gates and Access Way.