Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 2073 (QB) (04 October 2002)

Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 2073 (QB) (04 October 2002)

The obstruction caused by the defendant was not unreasonable in all the circumstances, taking into account the duration, place, purpose, effect of the obstruction, and the defendant's exercise of his Convention right to freedom of expression. There was no pressing social need to interfere with the defendant's protest, and the Council was not entitled to the injunction sought.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 2073
Parties
Claimant: Westminster City Council; Defendant: Brian Haw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Claim for Final Injunction / Judgment on Application for Final Injunction
Outcome
Injunction refused
Legal Topics
Obstruction of Highway, Freedom of Expression, Injunctions, Reasonableness of Use of Highway, Human Rights Act 1998, Highways Act 1980
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Public Law Obstruction of Highway Freedom of Expression Injunctions Reasonableness of Use of Highway Human Rights Act 1998 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Westminster City Council

Claimant

Brian Haw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Final Injunction / Judgment on Application for Final Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's protest constituted an unreasonable obstruction of the highway under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct was protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the Council was entitled to a final injunction restraining the defendant's protest

Ratio Decidendi

The obstruction caused by the defendant was not unreasonable in all the circumstances, taking into account the duration, place, purpose, effect of the obstruction, and the defendant's exercise of his Convention right to freedom of expression. There was no pressing social need to interfere with the defendant's protest, and the Council was not entitled to the injunction sought.

Court Disposition

Injunction refused