Heathrow Airport Ltd v Persons Unknown

A precautionary newcomer injunction may restrain anticipated trespass and nuisance by persons unknown where there is an imminent and real risk of harm. The claimant must establish a civil cause of action, a sufficiently strong case, clearly identified defendants and geographical boundaries, clear prohibitions matching the pleaded claims, and appropriate temporal and procedural safeguards. A claimant need only show a better right to possession than the proposed trespassers. Control of private land may suffice even where the claimant lacks title or an immediate proprietary right to every part of the site. Convention rights do not generally arise where the proposed protest is on private land without permission. Criminal byelaws do not necessarily provide a sufficient alternative where previous conduct shows that an injunction is required.

Heathrow Airport Ltd sought, without notice, a five-year precautionary injunction against persons unknown associated with Just Stop Oil or other environmental campaigns. The proposed defendants were said to threaten to enter, occupy or remain on Heathrow Airport without consent, causing trespass, nuisance, serious safety risks, disruption and financial loss.

The claimant relied on its ownership and operational control of the Airport, its regulatory responsibilities, evidence of planned airport protests, and previous disruptive activity. The defendants did not appear or participate. The central issues were whether the threatened conduct disclosed viable causes of action, whether the risk was sufficiently imminent, whether the injunction’s terms and procedure were adequate, and whether Convention rights or airport byelaws prevented or made unnecessary the relief.

1. Relief granted. The court granted the without-notice precautionary injunction. The evidence established an imminent and real risk of serious injury or death, financial harm and substantial inconvenience. The application was not premature, and notification created a real risk that the threatened conduct would occur before the hearing.
2. Causes of action and possession. The claimant had an overwhelmingly strong case in trespass and nuisance. For trespass, a claimant need show only a better right to possession than the proposed occupiers. The claimant’s title to relevant parcels, operational control of the Airport, regulatory responsibilities and airport byelaws established that right across the defined site. General public access was permissive and subject to legitimate airport purposes and compliance with the byelaws.
3. Nuisance. The threatened conduct would interfere with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of its property and would substantially affect members of the public. It therefore amounted to private and public nuisance. The claimant also established particular, direct and substantial harm beyond the general public injury.
4. Convention rights. The proposed protest was on private land. Persons unknown had no right to enter or protest there without permission, so Articles 10 and 11 were not engaged on these facts. The position differed from restrictions on protest on public land.
5. Safeguards. The persons unknown were defined by reference to the prohibited tortious conduct, the geographical boundaries were clear, and the prohibitions were expressed in accessible language matching the pleaded claims. The injunction was limited to five years, subject to annual review and applications for variation or discharge. Service provisions and a cross-undertaking in damages were adequate.
6. Byelaws. Although some prohibited conduct was criminal under the airport byelaws, they were not a sufficient means of control because previous disruptive protests had occurred. An injunction was therefore necessary and justified.