Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Anor.

A final anticipatory injunction may be granted where there is a real and imminent risk that defendants will infringe the claimant’s rights and the resulting harm would be grave and irreparable, making damages inadequate. Deliberately blocking important highways may constitute trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance, subject to the protection afforded by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The proportionality assessment requires a fact-specific evaluation of the importance of the aim, rational connection, less restrictive alternatives and fair balance. A final injunction may bind newcomer persons unknown where they are described with sufficient clarity. Such orders should ordinarily contain a fixed review point and liberty to apply.

Transport for London sought final injunctions against 129 named defendants and persons unknown connected with Insulate Britain. The claims arose from disruptive protests involving deliberate obstruction of roads forming part of the Greater London Authority road network.

The claimant relied on trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance, together with its statutory duty to assert and protect public highway rights under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980. The court considered whether final anticipatory relief was justified, whether the proposed injunction was proportionate under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether persons unknown could properly be bound.

1. Named defendants. Deliberately blocking the identified roads for protest purposes prima facie constituted trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance. The claimant established a real and imminent risk of further protests. The resulting disruption, danger, risk of violence, economic harm and diversion of public resources would be grave and irreparable, and damages would be inadequate.
2. Articles 10 and 11. The protests engaged freedom of expression and assembly. The injunction would interfere with those rights, but the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims and was necessary in a democratic society. The court applied the proportionality questions identified in DPP v Ziegler and found that preventing obstruction and protecting public safety were sufficiently important, that an injunction was rationally connected to those aims, that less restrictive means were inadequate, and that a fair balance favoured the injunction. The defendants remained free to protest elsewhere, subject to the order.
3. Persons unknown. Following Barking and Dagenham LBC v Persons Unknown, the court could grant a final injunction against newcomer persons unknown. The description linked them clearly to protest activity on behalf of, or associated with, Insulate Britain. A person who knowingly breached the order could thereby become a party and be bound by it. The Canada Goose guidelines were satisfied, including clarity, geographical limitation and provision for alternative service.
4. The injunction was granted for five years, subject to annual review and liberty to apply. Alternative service by email to Insulate Britain together with delivery or affixing of documents was permitted. The application for continuing third-party disclosure from the police was withdrawn. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the terms of the draft order.

First-instance final trial. Earlier interim injunctions had been granted and continued in the same proceedings, but no appeal from the present judgment is stated.