Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Anor.

Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Anor.

The Claimant established a real and imminent risk of further unlawful protest actions by the Defendants, causing grave and irreparable harm. The requirements for a final anticipatory injunction were met. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR rights was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary and proportionate. The injunction was justified against both named defendants and persons unknown, with appropriate provisions for alternative service and review.

Parties
Claimant: Transport for London; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendant: Mr Alexander Rodger and 137 Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction / Final Trial and Judgment
Outcome
Final injunction granted
Legal Topics
Anticipatory Injunctions, Trespass, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, Protest Law, Alternative Service, Persons Unknown, Disclosure Orders, Articles 10 and 11 ECHR
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Anticipatory Injunctions Trespass Public Nuisance Private Nuisance Protest Law +4 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transport for London

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Mr Alexander Rodger and 137 Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction / Final Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted against named defendants and persons unknown for protest actions on highways
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for anticipatory (quia timet) injunctions are met
  3. 3 Whether the injunction is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR (freedom of expression and assembly)

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant established a real and imminent risk of further unlawful protest actions by the Defendants, causing grave and irreparable harm. The requirements for a final anticipatory injunction were met. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR rights was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary and proportionate. The injunction was justified against both named defendants and persons unknown, with appropriate provisions for alternative service and review.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted

Orders

  • Final injunction granted against 129 named defendants and persons unknown as specified
  • Permission to discontinue proceedings against six named defendants