Overview
Landmark’s barristers regularly appear in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and County Court in proceedings involving protestors. They act in all sectors, including the healthcare sector, the education sector, the aviation and transport sector, the retail and agriculture sector, the energy and renewables sector, infrastructure, the security sector, as well as for a wide range of public bodies.
Speed is often decisive in protest injunction work. Landmark barristers have proven experience of delivering results under the most demanding timescales, combined with a rigorous understanding the procedural steps necessary to ensure that any order withstands challenge. Members of chambers have significant experience of acting on urgent claims both out of hours and as urgent business in the High Court vacation.
What sets Landmark apart is the breadth of expertise we bring to bear. Protest injunction cases sit at the intersection of property law and human rights law, and our barristers offer expertise in both disciplines. Equally important is our deep practical experience across the full lifecycle of this work — from the inception of proceedings through to committal — together with a proven track record of delivering creative, pragmatic solutions tailored to each client’s needs.
Who we act for
Landmark regularly acts for major private landowners (including the owners of many of the country’s most famous landmarks and infrastructure), energy companies, airport operators, retailers and food supply chain operators, government agencies, local government, NHS trusts, and universities.
A number of Landmark’s barristers have been recognised in Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 for their strength in this area, and regularly give talks and publish materials which focus on this subject.
Key cases
The following are examples of high-profile and key cases in which members have been involved:
- The Supreme Court case of Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies & Travellers confirming that trespass injunctions could be granted against Persons Unknown, including newcomers
- The leading High Court judgment on procedural requirements for protest injunctions: Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB), in which Ritchie J set out the fifteen substantive and procedural requirements that now govern applications for relief against persons unknown
- Claims brought by energy companies against the campaign of disruption by environmental protestors (such as Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain) in a series of cases from March 2022 and subsequent committal proceedings - Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown; Esso Petroleum v Persons Unknown; Esso Petroleum v Breen; Exolum Pipeline Systems v Persons Unknown; Essar Oil v Persons Unknown; Shell v Persons Unknown; UK Oil Pipelines Ltd v Persons Unknown involving dozens of hearings across multiple members of Landmark years and multiple members of Landmark, including the grant of final injunctions to Shell in December 2024
- Claims brought by airport operators against a campaign by environmental protestors – London City Airport Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2223 (KB); Manchester Airport Group plc v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2247 (KB); Gatwick Airport Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 2228 (KB); Heathrow Airport Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 2599 (KB) as well as many of their annual renewals in 2026.
- Urgent precautionary injunction on behalf of WM Morrison Supermarkets against obstruction of multiple regional distribution centres by agricultural protesters: WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 83 (KB)
- Injunctions in relation to the wave of university encampment protests in 2024–2025, including Cardiff University (June 2025, a "quasi-final" 12-month injunction granted at first hearing)
- Challenges to environmental protestors obstructing the strategic road network and subsequent committal proceedings - National Highways Ltd v Persons Unknown [2023] EWCA Civ 182
- Supreme Court challenge to the Abortion Service (Safe Access Zones) Bill, which makes it a criminal offence to protest within 100m of an abortion clinic: [2022] UKSC 32
- Contempt proceedings brought against environmental protestors:
- National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin [2021] EWHC 3078 (QB)
- Challenge to abortion clinic ‘Public Space Protection Order’ - Dulgheriu v Ealing LBC, QBD [2018] EWHC 1667; [2019] EWCA Civ 1490
- ‘Urban Explorers’ litigation involving trespassers high rise buildings, Chelsea FC, O2 and the Shard: Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Persons Unknown; Chelsea v. Brewer [2018] EWHC 1424; Ansco Arena v. Law [2019] EWHC 835; Re King-Thompson [2019] EWHC 2962
- Sheffield tree protest litigation: this included successful injunction proceedings - Sheffield City Council v Fairhall [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB)) and later committal proceedings in 2018
- Occupy London protests (on private land), relating to a bank building occupied as the “Bank of Ideas” - Sun Street Property Ltd v Persons Unknown [2011] EWHC 3432 (Ch)
- Occupy London protests (on private and public land), relating to the London Stock Exchange and St Paul’s Cathedral protests - City of London Corp v Samede [2012] EWHC 34 (QB)
- Parliament Square protest camp - Mayor of London v Hall [2010] EWCA Civ 817.
For more information about our public law offering in protest law, please click here.
