Despite changing a misleading title on my previous post (which seemed accurate on the scant information available earlier this morning), I'm now beginning to think even 'BAA wins its case' is a bit too strong. Sure, they managed to get something out of their High Court injunction but it's a far cry from what they applied for.

This from Sky News on BAA's injunction:

Just a very quick update. The Heathrow injunction hearing has closed and Mrs Justice Swift will be ruling at 10am on Monday.

If you want some weekend reading to keep you going until then, The Times has a piece on the legal basis of the injunction attempt (an anti-stalkers law), the BBC has a round-up of yesterday's happenings at the High Court and Sian Berry mulls over what it all means in the New Statesman.

The hearing on BAA's Heathrow injunction began today and, so far, it mostly seems to have involved debate about whom BAA did and didn't intend to injunct.

From PA (snipped for length):

Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone has just joined the fray, speaking out against BAA's injunction. (If BAA wins its case next Wednesday, five million people would be banned from Heathrow airport, parts of two motorways and the entire Picadilly Line on the London Underground.)

Update - 1st August: The hearing is underway.

Here's a doozy for you: on Wednesday, the aviation industry is taking five million people - including a lot of their own staff - to court. If you're a member or supporter of a group that's concerned about climate change, the chances are you're a defendant too.

The industry seems to want to ban five million of us from Heathrow and all routes to the airport, including the Piccadilly line, parts of the rail network, and sections of the M25 and M4.