Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors [2023] EWHC 1038 (KB) (03 May 2023)

Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors [2023] EWHC 1038 (KB) (03 May 2023)

The court found that the defendants' protest activities constituted trespass, private nuisance, and public nuisance, and that there was a real and imminent risk of further unlawful protests. The harm caused was grave and irreparable, and damages would be inadequate. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR was justified, prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate, striking a fair balance between individual rights and the public interest. The requirements for a final anticipatory injunction were met. The injunction was also justified against persons unknown, with appropriate provisions for alternative service and review.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1038 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Transport for London; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendants: Mr Alexander Rodger and 137 Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction / Final Trial and Judgment
Outcome
Final injunction granted
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Protest Law, Trespass, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Persons Unknown, Alternative Service
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Injunctions Protest Law Trespass Public Nuisance Private Nuisance +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 7 Authorities cited 17 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

Defendants

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 activity on specified roads
  2. 2 Whether the conduct constitutes trespass, private nuisance, or public nuisance
  3. 3 Whether the injunction is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR (freedom of expression and assembly)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants' protest activities constituted trespass, private nuisance, and public nuisance, and that there was a real and imminent risk of further unlawful protests. The harm caused was grave and irreparable, and damages would be inadequate. The interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR was justified, prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate, striking a fair balance between individual rights and the public interest. The requirements for a final anticipatory injunction were met. The injunction was also justified against 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 in the order
  • Permission to discontinue proceedings against six named defendants; discontinuance to take effect on date of order; those defendants entitled to their costs (if any)