header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 September 2007 / Tim Lawson-Cruttenden , Lacie Kerner
Issue: 7289 / Categories: Features , Environment
printer mail-detail

Airport watch

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

BAA was a misunderstood and misrepresented injunction, say Tim Lawson-Cruttenden and Lacie Kerner

On 6 August 2007 in Heathrow Airport Ltd and others v Garman and others [2007] All ER (D) 28 (Aug), the High Court granted Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) an injunction, the purpose of which was to restrain any unlawful and/or tortious activity directed by environmental activists during the course of the Camp for Climate Action 2007 (CfCA 2007) which took place between 14 and 21 August 2007. The injunction took effect from midnight on 7 August 2007 and expired at midnight on 31 August 2007.

HAL’s application was controversial and was the subject of vitriolic criticism by London mayor Ken Livingstone, who made uncomplimentary remarks about the Spanish firm Ferrovial, likening it to the Franco regime. The media portrayed the application as illiberal and repressive, and claimed that HAL was seeking to prevent up to six million individuals from visiting the airport during August 2007. The media frenzy generated by the application sought to criticise HAL and the BAA management for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll