Heathrow Airport Ltd v Persons Unknown

( Please note that due to the poor standard of audio recording it has not been possible to produce a high quality transcript in this case)

On 9 July 2024 the claimant, Heathrow Airport Limited, was granted an injunction by Knowles J restraining certain persons unknown, identified as the first defendant, from entering or remaining on Heathrow Airport without consent in connection with Just Stop Oil or other environmental campaigns. The injunction was to continue for a period of five years but was made subject to successive annual review hearings, each of which was listed as close as conveniently possible to the anniversary of the original judgment. This is the first review hearing. I note in passing that I am satisfied that adequate notice has been given of the hearing and electronic access to the materials relied upon provided to all who may have an interest in the outcome.

The injunction was granted in circumstances in which persons, particularly those affiliated to the Just Stop Oil cause, were pursuing a campaign of direct action targeting UK airports in the summer of 2024. That campaign involved serious acts of trespass and disruptive actions at UK airports, including Heathrow. It was thought that without injunctive relief the disruption would be likely to continue.

Other major UK airports sought and successfully obtained similar injunctions at around the same time. There were some differences in the precise content but each was in the form of what is known as a newcomer injunction against persons unknown and each was also granted for a period of five years with annual reviews. Ten of those airports London City, Manchester, Stanstead, East Midlands, Leeds/Bradford, Luton, Newcastle, Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool applied successfully for the review hearing of their respective injunctions to be heard jointly. The hearing took place before Bourne J on 24 June 2025. In all relevant respects the injunctions were ordered to continue and the reasons are set out with helpful and succinct clarity in the judgment to be found at London City Airport Limited and Docklands Aviation Group Limited v Persons Unknown [2025] 6 WLUK 499.

Of course, each such application must be approached on its own facts but the principles to be applied are the same. In particular, a renewal hearing such as this one is not rehearing of the original injunction application. It does, however, allow for the claimant and all interested parties to make full disclosure to the court supported by appropriate evidence as to

1. How effective the order has been;

2. Whether there are any grounds for discharge;

3. Whether there is any proper justification for continuance; and

4. Whether a further order should be made.

The court must therefore consider whether anything material has changed, or if the risks still exists, before the extension is likely to be granted. However, if material matters have changed the court must analyse those changes and determine whether the injunction should continue, be discharged or its terms amended. Where some further and similar injunctive relief is appropriate, it will often be the case that the court will not depart without the reason from the original wording and the original injunction because any potential defendants might already be aware of the wording of the original and confusion may otherwise arise if it is changed.

The detail of the factual background to the granting of the original injunction is set out in the judgment Julian Knowles J, which is recorded at [2024] EWHC 2599 KB. No purpose would be served by rehearsing that material here. However, I ought to point out by way of important background...