Transport for London v Persons Unknown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morris |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1038 (KB) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: QB-2021-003841 and QB-2021-004122 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
[2023] EWHC 1038 (KB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Morris
Case Nos: QB-2021-003841 and QB-2021-004122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Andrew Fraser-Urquhart KC and Charles Forrest (instructed by TfL) for the Claimant
Barry Mitchell and David Rinaldi (Named Defendants 9 and 135) attended.
No attendance by or representation for the other Defendants
Hearing dates: 29 and 30 March 2023
Approved Judgment
Introduction
By this action Transport for London (“the Claimant”) seeks a final injunction against 129 of the 138 named defendants (“the Named Defendants”) and certain defined persons unknown (“Persons Unknown”). The Defendants, including the Persons Unknown, are supporters of, and activists connected with, “Insulate Britain” (“IB”). This is the final trial of the action.
The claims arise from disruptive protests on the highway since September 2021 under the auspices of IB and other affiliated groups. A very large proportion of those protests have involved protesters deliberately blocking roads by sitting down in the road, and often gluing themselves to its surface and/or “locking” themselves to each other to make their removal more time-consuming. The 129 Named Defendants are all alleged to have taken part in one or more IB protests.
By the final injunction, the Claimant seeks an order that prevents the blocking, for the purpose of protests, of roads and surrounding areas at 34 identified locations, referred to as the “IB Roads”. The IB Roads are a very important part of the TfL Strategic Road Network (the “GLA Roads”). GLA Roads are, broadly speaking, the most important roads in Greater London, carrying a third of London's traffic, despite comprising only 5% of its road network length. The locations fall into two categories: first, bridges or junctions of great importance and their surrounding access roads; and secondly, certain longer protected stretches of road, such as the A4 and the North Circular Road.
This case is the latest in a number of similar “protest” cases which have come before this Court and the Court of Appeal. In particular, some of those cases concern protests under the auspices of a related group “Just Stop Oil” (“JSO”). In a number of those cases, written judgments have been handed down, covering issues, both legal and factual, similar to those in this case. In particular I have in mind the judgments of Bennathan J and the Court of Appeal in the case which I refer to as NHL v IB, reported at [2022] EWHC 1105 (QB) and [2023] EWCA Civ 182 respectively, and the judgments of Freedman J and Cavanagh J in the case which I refer to as TfL v JSO, reported at [2022] EWHC 3102 (KB) and [2023] EWHC 402 (KB) respectively. I also refer to the judgment of Lavender J in another NHL case dated 17 November 2021 [2021] EWHC 3081 (QB). In this judgment, I do not repeat all of the relevant factual and legal background; rather, where uncontroversial or where I agree, I cross-refer to, and adopt, certain passages in those judgments.
Summary conclusion
For the reasons set out in this judgment, I am satisfied that the Claimant has established its case and that it is appropriate to grant a final injunction against 129 of the Named Defendants and against Persons Unknown in the terms set out in the orders which I make today.
Brief procedural history
The Claimant has brought two actions, commenced, respectively, on 12 October 2021 and 8 November 2021. Interim injunctions in the two actions had already been granted on an urgent and without notice basis, respectively, by May J on 8 October 2021 and by Jay J on 4 November 2021. At subsequent on notice hearings, these interim injunctions were extended, in some cases in varied form. On 11 October 2022 the interim injunctions which are currently in force were made by Cotter J. On the same occasion the judge ordered an expedited trial. Initially the Claimant intended to apply for summary judgment. However following the judgment of Bennathan J in NHL v IB, it decided to proceed instead to a final trial. That decision was made and the direction given before the Court of Appeal, more recently in February this year, granted full summary judgment in NHL v IB. In the course of the hearing before me, I indicated that the interim injunctions would remain in place until this judgment is handed down.
The final prohibitory injunction is sought against 129 Named Defendants and against Persons Unknown when acting for the purposes of protesting in the name of IB (as defined more specifically in the title to the claim). (The activities of the Named Defendants which are enjoined are not limited to them acting in the name of IB). The final order, as originally sought, was in terms very similar to the interim injunctions currently in force, and included provision both for alternative service and for third party disclosure from the Metropolitan Police. As matters developed at the hearing, the Claimant no longer seeks any order for third party disclosure: see further paragraph 62 below.
The Claimant's evidence for this trial comprises witness statements of Mr Abbey Ameen, the Claimant's principal in-house solicitor and Mr Glynn Barton, formerly the Claimant's Director of Network Management and now its Chief Operating Officer, both dated 27 February 2023. Each gave evidence in court verifying the contents of his statement. The former sets out at some considerable length, with extensive exhibits, detailed information about the various protest groups and the array of different proceedings brought by different parties (as set out below). He gave detailed evidence of the IB (and the JSO) protests that have taken place and of their effect, both in the London area and elsewhere, particularly around the M25. He also gave evidence of the service of documents and other steps taken to bring the proceedings to the attention of the Defendants and IB. Mr Barton's statement sets out the justification for the roads selected by the Claimant to be protected by the final injunction sought. He provides evidence as to why the IB Roads are so strategically important and why they should be protected. His evidence is that their strategic importance means that they are more likely to be targeted by IB protesters, whose intention is to cause maximum disruption and thus maximum damage is caused to other users of the highway and the wider public interest.
The Parties
The Claimant
The Claimant is a statutory corporation created by the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It is both the highway authority and the traffic authority for the GLA Roads. More detail of the Claimant's statutory functions, powers and duties in relation to the GLA Roads and the provisions under which it brings these proceedings are set out in Freedman J's judgment in TfL v JSO at §§8 and 9.
The Claimant makes this claim pursuant to its duties under section 130 Highways Act 1980 (power to take legal proceedings as part of performing the duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoy the highway) and on the basis that the conduct of the Defendants in participating in the IB protests constitutes (i) trespass, (ii) private nuisance and/or (iii) public nuisance.
The Named Defendants
The claim forms identify, at Annex 1, the 139 Named Defendants, each individually numbered from 1 to 139. The Named Defendants have all participated at IB protests (M25 or IB roads) or JSO protests.
Mr Ameen has explained in detail the steps taken to serve the Named Defendants with all relevant court documents in the course of the proceedings, following the making of earlier orders for alternative service. As regards this trial, the Named Defendants were sent, by first class post, the notice of hearing for this trial on 10 January 2023. It was also emailed to IB on 10 January 2023 and was put up on the TfL and Greater London Authority websites. In a further witness statement dated 2 April 2023, Mr Ameen has explained how all the written materials relevant to this trial were sent to the Named Defendants, including the evidence, draft final orders and skeleton argument, on dates between 28 February 2023 and 16 March 2023.
No defendant has acknowledged service or filed a defence. Up until the final trial, no defendant had attended any hearing in these claims since 12 November 2021; and no defendant has served any evidence or skeleton argument for this trial. However, at or leading up to this trial, four Named Defendants have made representations.
First, Matthew Tulley, Named Defendant 65, in advance of the hearing, offered an undertaking to the Court. In an email to Mr Ameen, he asserted that he has not breached the existing injunctions and that he has no intention of doing so. Secondly, Mr David Rinaldi, Named Defendant 135 both wrote to the Claimant and appeared on the first morning of the hearing. Thirdly, Mr Barry Mitchell, Named Defendant 9, also attended court on the first morning of the hearing. Each of these three Named Defendants has offered an undertaking in terms similar to the terms of the final injunction which I have decided to grant. Accordingly, whilst each remains a party to the claims, the final injunction is not made as against them and their names are now excluded from Annex 1 to the final injunction.
A fourth defendant, James Bradbury (Named Defendant 39), following notification on 10 January 2023, wrote to the Claimant on 16 January 2023, claiming that he had not blocked any TfL infrastructure and asking for clarification of the case against him. Following a rather general reply from the Claimant, he wrote again on 10 February 2023 maintaining his position and asking why his name had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transport for London v Persons Unknown
...as part of campaigns by Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion is summarised by Morris J in his judgment in Transport for London v Persons Unknown & others [2023] EWHC 1038 (KB) (“ Insulate Britain”). I adopt the analysis of the history set out in those judgments and need only give the ......