Teledyne UK Limited v Julian Allen GAO & Ors

A final injunction may restrain unlawful protest affecting private land, access to the highway and the public use of the highway where the claimant establishes a real and imminent risk of tortious conduct, inadequate protection through damages and proportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 rights.

Injunctions against Persons Unknown require compelling justification, precise definition, clear prohibitions, appropriate notification, a right to apply to vary or discharge, and periodic review. A review is generally not a de novo reconsideration. The court should examine the effectiveness of the order and whether material circumstances have changed.

The claimant sought final injunctions against twelve named defendants following unlawful protests at six industrial sites, and continuation of an existing injunction against four categories of Persons Unknown. The claim relied on trespass, interference with the claimant’s common law right of access to the highway and public nuisance by obstruction of the highway.

Earlier interim orders had been made by Bourne J, Tipples J and Murray J. The court considered the evidence of continuing protest activity, the risk of further unlawful conduct, the effect of the existing injunction and the appropriate form and duration of relief.

1. Disposition. Final injunctions were granted against the remaining named defendants. The injunction against the Persons Unknown defendants was continued, with a minor amendment preserving a public right of way. The order was made for five years, until 25 July 2030, subject to annual review for the Persons Unknown defendants.
2. Causes of action. The evidence established a real and imminent risk of trespass, unlawful interference with the claimant’s right of access to the highway and public nuisance by obstruction. Trespass is a strict liability tort and actionable per se. A licence does not prevent trespass where the entrant exceeds its scope or remains after it has ended. The right of access to the highway is qualified by the public’s right to reasonable use.
3. Proportionality. Applying DPP v Ziegler [2022] AC 408, the interference pursued the legitimate aim of protecting property and access rights, was rationally connected to that aim, and was necessary and proportionate. The injunction targeted unlawful conduct and did not prevent peaceful and lawful protest.
4. Persons Unknown. The requirements identified in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 were satisfied. There was compelling justification, a strong probability of further tortious conduct, real harm and an imminent threat. The existing order was sufficiently precise and no true contra mundum order was necessary.
5. Review. The annual review was not a de novo hearing. Its purpose was to assess the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge or variation, the continuing justification and the basis for further continuation. The evidence showed that the injunction had reduced unlawful activity but had not removed the risk.
6. The named defendants were ordered to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis, with payments on account of £6,125 each.

This was a first-instance decision. Interim injunctions had previously been made by Bourne J, Tipples J and Murray J in the same proceedings.