BAA, the owner of Heathrow, backed down yesterday in its attempt to secure a far-reaching injunction that could have resulted in five million people being banned from using roads and public transport near the airport.

Bringing its application in the High Court, the company said that the injunction would apply only to “protesters” against airport expansion who were acting unlawfully during the Camp for Climate Action, from August 14 to 21. The aim was to protect the airport and passengers and staff “against the planned direct action by environmental activists”.

The application had named four individuals who campaign against Heathrow’s growth, and also the organisations to which they belong: Plane Stupid, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, Airportwatch and No Third Runway Action Group.

Airportwatch is an umbrella organisation supported by groups with five million members, including the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust, Friends of the Earth, Green-peace and the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Protesters had branded the move “the mother of all injunctions” and claimed that BAA had resorted to “legal bullying”. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, accused BAA bosses of being “out of their skull” and unwittingly inciting hardcore protesters to join the action camp and turn a peaceful protest into a violent one.

The judge, Mrs Justice Swift, opened yesterday’s hearing by declaring that she was an active member of the RSPB, a benefactor of the National Trust and a member of the CPRE. Tim Lawson-Cruttenden, BAA’s solicitor, said that he had no objection to her hearing the case.

He said the application concerned only four named defendants: Joss Garman, Leo Murray, John Stewart and Geraldine Nicholson. “So, rather than bind millions of people, which Mr Livingstone thought we are trying to bind, we are only trying to bind those people who wish to obstruct or prevent us from lawfully using the airport,” he said.

“A person does not become subject to this order unless he or she comes within the definition of protester and until he or she acts by unlawful means in order to deter my clients from their lawful activities.”

Martin Chamberlain, counsel for Transport for London, said that BAA had changed its position just before the hearing. He told the court: “What the claimants were trying to do until we arrived at court today was to crimi-nalise any supporter, member or participant in any of the named groups who came to Heathrow for any purpose whatsoever apart from protesting in the designated protesting pen.” BAA has said that it is willing to allow protests, but only in three tightly controlled areas well away from the key access points to the airport.

Mr Lawson-Cruttenden used extracts from newspaper and television reports to argue that the four individuals had made clear that they supported direct action which would disrupt the journeys of thousands of people using Heathrow. In one report Mr Murray had described how he had been involved in a protest at East Midlands airport in which a group of 23 campaigners had cut through a perimeter fence and occupied a taxi-way. The protest had caused long delays for more than 1,000 passengers.

Mr Lawson-Cruttenden also quoted from an interview Mr Stewart gave to The Times, in which he said: “There will be the mother of all battles over Heathrow because the environmental movement sees it as a cause célèbre. It will be the Newbury bypass of the skies.” He said one idea, mentioned in The Times report, was for a convoy of cars to stop inside the road tunnels under the northern runway, causing chaos for people trying to reach the terminals.

Nicholas Blake, QC, for the defendants, questioned the need for the proceedings as, he said, three of the named individuals had given undertakings as to trespass and nuisance and the fourth was away on holiday in France with her children throughout August. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden emphasised: “We are only injuncting those who wish to act unlawfully. There is nothing to stop anyone from coming to the airport if they wish to act lawfully.”

Speaking before the hearing, a spokesman for the airport said: “During the summer holiday period up to 200,000 people pass through Heathrow daily, including many families and children. It is these people who would suffer as a result of any unlawful or irresponsible behaviour aimed at disrupting the smooth operation of the airport.

“We respect people’s right to protest within the bounds of the law and the airport bylaws and would invite protesters to similarly respect the rights of passengers.”

The hearing is expected to conclude on Friday.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones