Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown

Where protesters are unidentified, the court should ordinarily use alternative service capable of bringing proceedings to their attention. Dispensing with service of a claim form under CPR r.6.16 is reserved for exceptional cases. An injunction against newcomers may be granted without notice only where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights which other measures cannot adequately meet, subject to robust procedural safeguards.

Peaceful protest remains protected by articles 10 and 11, but deliberate obstruction is a relevant proportionality factor. The court must assess all the circumstances, including the legal breaches, location, duration, occupation, actual interference, and importance and sincerity of the views expressed. Trespass cannot be justified by the right to protest.

The claimant local authority sought interim injunctions against unidentified protesters supporting an ongoing Unite strike by Birmingham bin workers. The relief was directed against trespass at four waste depots, obstruction of depot entrances and exits, and obstruction of street-management vehicles throughout Birmingham.

The court considered whether service could be dispensed with, whether alternative service was effective, whether the pleaded claims in trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance disclosed a sufficient basis for relief, and whether the proposed restrictions were compatible with articles 10 and 11. The central issues were whether there was a compelling need for an injunction binding newcomers and whether the interference with protest rights was proportionate.

1. Service and notification. The court authorised alternative service under CPR rr.6.15 and 6.27. The steps taken, including publication online, communications with organisations, notices at depots, social-media publicity and leafleting, constituted good service on protesters who had previously protested near the depot gates between 17 September 2025 and 12 February 2026. Dispensing with service of the claim form under r.6.16 was inappropriate because effective alternative notification was available. Rule 6.28 did not justify dispensing with service of the injunction application.
2. Relief against newcomers. An order intended to bind newcomers was necessarily made without notice. Applying Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies & Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, the claimant had to establish a compelling need for protection of its civil rights which could not adequately be met by other measures. The order required reasonable steps to publicise the proceedings, stringent disclosure, territorial and temporal limits, and generous liberty to apply.
3. Underlying causes of action. The claimant showed a sufficient basis for interim relief. There was evidence of trespass at Perry Barr depot, substantial interference with access to and egress from the depots amounting to private nuisance, and targeted obstruction of the claimant’s vehicles capable of constituting public nuisance where special damage was established.
4. Convention rights and proportionality. Articles 10 and 11 were engaged. The proposed injunction was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others, including property rights and the public’s interests in unobstructed highways and waste services. Following DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23 and City of London Corporation v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160, the court conducted a fact-specific proportionality assessment. Deliberate obstruction was not automatically outside articles 10 and 11, but it was relevant because it was not at the core of the protected right. The escalating, repeated and substantial disruption made the injunction proportionate. The sincere and legitimate political character of the protesters’ views did not outweigh the interference caused.
5. Orders. Interim relief was granted restraining trespass at the depots, obstruction of depot entrances and exits, and obstruction of the claimant’s street-management vehicles throughout Birmingham. The order preserved lawful picketing in accordance with existing orders concerning Unite and peaceful protest that did not trespass or obstruct free passage. Relief was granted until trial or further order, subject to an initial maximum period of three months. No order was made dispensing with service of future committal applications.