North Warwickshire Borough Council v David Baldwin & Ors

A local authority may seek an injunction under Local Government Act 1972, section 222, to protect inhabitants from public nuisance and to support the criminal law. It need not prove special damage or first exhaust other statutory remedies. An interim injunction may restrain conduct which is not independently tortious or criminal where that is necessary and proportionate to protect the claimant’s rights effectively.

Injunctions against protesters and persons unknown must be sufficiently clear, geographically defined and capable of effective service. Lawful protest remains protected by Articles 10 and 11, but restrictions may be imposed where necessary to prevent serious risks to public safety, health, the rights of others, disorder or crime.

The Council sought continuation of an interim anticipatory injunction against named defendants and persons unknown following organised protests at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The protests included trespass, obstruction, interference with tankers and terminal equipment, tunnelling beneath roads and conduct creating risks of fire, explosion, injury and environmental harm.

The Council relied on public nuisance, support for the criminal law, its statutory powers under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Highways Act 1980, and sought a power of arrest. The defendants challenged the Council’s standing, the scope and service of the injunction, the power of arrest, the availability of alternative remedies and compatibility with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. The central issues were whether interim relief remained justified and whether the order complied with the requirements governing injunctions against persons unknown.

1. Continuation of injunction. The application to discharge the interim injunction was refused. Subject to amendment of the description of persons unknown and related procedural matters, the order would remain in force until trial.
2. Statutory standing and causes of action. Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives a local authority power to institute proceedings to protect inhabitants. It does not itself create a cause of action, but permits proceedings in public nuisance and in support of the criminal law. Special damage is unnecessary. The Council was not enforcing the private rights of terminal operators. Section 130 of the Highways Act 1980 provided an additional statutory responsibility concerning highway rights and obstruction, but did not itself create the cause of action.
3. Public nuisance and scope of relief. Public nuisance may arise from conduct on private land where its effects materially affect a class of the public. The court may restrain preparatory or otherwise lawful conduct where the restriction is necessary to prevent a threatened public nuisance and no other proportionate protection is available.
4. Support for the criminal law. The jurisdiction is exceptional and must be exercised cautiously. It requires substantially more than a mere breach of the criminal law, including a real inference that the unlawful conduct will continue and that an injunction is necessary to restrain it. Those conditions were met because the protests were persistent, dangerous, escalating and not effectively controlled by arrests, bail conditions or ordinary criminal proceedings.
5. Alternative remedies. The Council was not obliged to pursue a public spaces protection order, criminal behaviour order or other remedy before seeking an injunction. The urgency, the risk of grave and irreparable harm and the limited deterrent effect of alternative sanctions supported injunctive relief.
6. Power of arrest. Section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 permits a power of arrest where prohibited conduct is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance and there is a significant risk of harm. The statutory reference to a person includes an ascertainable class of persons protected under section 222. The high threshold was satisfied.
7. Interim and Convention tests. The American Cyanamid requirements were satisfied. Damages were inadequate because of the risk of irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured protection of public health and safety. The Council was also likely to obtain relief at trial for the purposes of section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. The injunction pursued legitimate aims and was a proportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11. It did not prohibit lawful protest generally.
8. Persons unknown and service. The injunction’s prohibited acts were sufficiently clear and proportionate, but the existing description of persons unknown, based simply on participation in protests against fossil fuels at the Terminal, did not comply with the guidance in Canada Goose. The claim form and orders required amendment. Alternative service by notices and online publication was permissible under CPR 6.15(1), subject to fairness at any committal stage.