National Highways Ltd v Persons Unknown

National Highways Ltd v Persons Unknown

There is a real and imminent risk of further torts of trespass and nuisance being committed by protestors on the SRN. The injunction is a proportionate and necessary interference with the protestors’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, given the serious and repeated disruption caused, the inadequacy of alternative remedies, and the need to protect the rights of other road users and the public interest. The balance of convenience strongly favours continuation of the injunction.

Parties
Claimant: National Highways Limited; Defendants: Persons unknown deliberately causing the blocking, slowing down, obstructing or otherwise interfering with the flow of traffic onto or off or along the strategic road network for the purpose of protesting and Others; Defendant: Dr Diana Lewen Warner; Defendant: Jerrard Mark Latimer; Defendant: Liam Norton; Defendant: Michael Brown; Defendant: Rob Stuart; Defendant: Stephen Gower; Defendant: Tim Speers; Defendant: Victoria Anne Lindsell; Defendant: Andria Efthimious-Mordaunt; Interested Party: Jessica Branch; Interested Party: Caspar Hughes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Application – Return Date Hearing for Ex Parte Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application to set aside interim injunction refused; injunction varied and continued.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Quia Timet Relief, Protest Law, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Trespass, Nuisance
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Law Interim Injunctions Quia Timet Relief Protest Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly +2 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Highways Limited

Claimant

Persons unknown deliberately causing the blocking, slowing down, obstructing or otherwise interfering with the flow of traffic onto or off or along the strategic road network for the purpose of protesting and Others

Defendants

Dr Diana Lewen Warner

Defendant

Jerrard Mark Latimer

Defendant

Liam Norton

Defendant

Michael Brown

Defendant

Rob Stuart

Defendant

Stephen Gower

Defendant

Tim Speers

Defendant

Victoria Anne Lindsell

Defendant

Andria Efthimious-Mordaunt

Defendant

Jessica Branch

Interested Party

Caspar Hughes

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Application – Return Date Hearing for Ex Parte Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a sufficiently real and imminent risk of torts (trespass and nuisance) to justify quia timet interim injunctive relief against protestors on the Strategic Road Network (SRN)
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction against protestors is a proportionate interference with their rights to freedom of expression and assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real and imminent risk of further torts of trespass and nuisance being committed by protestors on the SRN. The injunction is a proportionate and necessary interference with the protestors’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, given the serious and repeated disruption caused, the inadequacy of alternative remedies, and the need to protect the rights of other road users and the public interest. The balance of convenience strongly favours continuation of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside interim injunction refused; injunction varied and continued.

Orders

  • The ex parte interim injunction made by Linden J on 25 October 2021 is not set aside.
  • The injunction is varied by discharging Linden J’s order with effect from 11 November 2021 and making a differently worded injunction in its place.