Manchester Airport Plc & Ors v Persons Unknown

Applications for injunctions against persons unknown who threaten disruptive protests require more than the ordinary balance-of-convenience approach. The court must be satisfied that there is a compelling need for the injunction.

Relevant considerations include the reality and imminence of the threat, the likely consequences of disruption, the adequacy of existing criminal and regulatory remedies, and the effect on Convention rights. Peaceful protest rights do not protect deliberate and potentially unlawful criminal conduct. Injunctions may extend beyond land in the claimants’ possession where that is necessary to make protection against trespass and nuisance effective.

The claimants, operators or owners of Manchester, Stansted and East Midlands airports, sought injunctions against persons unknown who had publicly indicated an intention to conduct disruptive fossil-fuel protests at UK airports during summer 2024.

The applications were made without notice. The proposed defendants were defined by their common purpose, intentions, past conduct and future plans. The central issues were whether there was a compelling need for protective injunctions, whether the orders should cover the identified airport areas despite intervening leases or licences, and whether the orders unjustifiably interfered with rights under articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Outcome. The applications were granted. The injunctions were necessary and proportionate, supported by a compelling need, and were to be reviewed after 12 months.
2. Applicable approach. Following Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 and Valero Energy Limited v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB), these sui generis newcomer applications are not determined merely by the ordinary balance-of-convenience approach. The key question is whether there is a compelling need for relief.
3. Compelling need. The evidence established a real and imminent threat of disruptive activity. Airports have heightened security sensitivities, disruption may produce extensive knock-on effects, and there were risks of damage to aircraft and significant financial consequences. Those matters made the injunctions necessary and proportionate.
4. Scope. The orders could cover all land identified in the plans, including areas where third parties had rights of occupation, because limiting the orders to land in the claimants’ possession would not provide effective protection. Protest activity could spill onto land where the claimants were entitled to protection against trespass or nuisance.
5. Alternative remedies and Convention rights. Criminal offences and airport byelaws operate after conduct has occurred and therefore did not prevent the threatened harm. The court considered articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Rights to peaceful protest did not extend to deliberate and potentially unlawful criminal conduct, and any interference did not outweigh the compelling need for protection. The claimants’ undertaking in damages provided an additional safeguard.
6. Orders. The definition of persons unknown was amended to include identified organisations and similarly minded persons within the defined class. Affected persons could apply to discharge, set aside or vary the orders. Relevant third-party occupiers were to be notified.