Hillingdon Borough Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

Hillingdon Borough Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

The court held that Hillingdon, as landowner, is entitled to withdraw consent for overnight occupation and certain disruptive protest activities, and that the limited interim injunction sought is justified and proportionate, balancing the rights of the protesters under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR with the rights of the landowner and other users. The acts of nuisance were not sufficiently particularised to justify wider relief. The injunction is limited to prohibiting overnight sleeping and four specific protest acts, pending trial.

Parties
Claimant: Hillingdon Borough Council; Defendant: Persons Unknown (remaining or occupying without consent); Defendant: Persons Unknown (entering for purpose of protest); Defendant: Mark Keir; Defendant: Larch Maxey; Defendant: Vajda Robert Mardechaj; Defendant: Iain Oliver; Defendant: Connor Nicholls; Defendant: Paul Sandison; Defendant: Tom Dalton; Defendant: Stephanie Robinson; Defendant: Roblyn Maxey; Defendant: Jessica Heathland-Smith; Defendant: Ella Dorton; Defendant: Vivian Hohmann; Defendant: Christopher Court-Dobson; Defendant: Karle Collins; Defendant: Sam Goggin; Defendant: Fabio Rapisardi; Defendant: Alan Lofting; Defendant: Alan Edward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Injunction (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted (pending trial)
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Trespass, Nuisance, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Public Authority Powers, Protest Law
Civil Procedure Human Rights Property Law Tort Law Interim Injunctions Trespass Nuisance Freedom of Expression +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hillingdon Borough Council

Claimant

Persons Unknown (remaining or occupying without consent)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (entering for purpose of protest)

Defendant

Mark Keir

Defendant

Larch Maxey

Defendant

Vajda Robert Mardechaj

Defendant

Iain Oliver

Defendant

Connor Nicholls

Defendant

Paul Sandison

Defendant

Tom Dalton

Defendant

Stephanie Robinson

Defendant

Roblyn Maxey

Defendant

Jessica Heathland-Smith

Defendant

Ella Dorton

Defendant

Vivian Hohmann

Defendant

Christopher Court-Dobson

Defendant

Karle Collins

Defendant

Sam Goggin

Defendant

Fabio Rapisardi

Defendant

Alan Lofting

Defendant

Alan Edward

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction Application) / Interim Injunction (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (named and persons unknown) are trespassing on Hillingdon's land by overnight occupation and protest activities
  2. 2 Whether the alleged acts constitute nuisance
  3. 3 Whether the injunction sought is compatible with the defendants' rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Hillingdon, as landowner, is entitled to withdraw consent for overnight occupation and certain disruptive protest activities, and that the limited interim injunction sought is justified and proportionate, balancing the rights of the protesters under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR with the rights of the landowner and other users. The acts of nuisance were not sufficiently particularised to justify wider relief. The injunction is limited to prohibiting overnight sleeping and four specific protest acts, pending trial.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted (pending trial)

Orders

  • Defendants (named and persons unknown) are restrained from sleeping overnight on the land without express permission.
  • Defendants are prohibited from attaching persons to other persons or objects so as to create an obstruction.