A landmark ruling from London’s Central London County Court has cleared the way for German insurance multinational Allianz to move forward with a high-stakes civil lawsuit against six pro-Palestine activists that could push the defendants into lifelong bankruptcy, even as criminal proceedings against the group remain pending.
The group, dubbed the “Allianz6”, staged two separate office occupations at Allianz locations in Guildford and central London between 2024 and 2025 to protest the company’s former insurance coverage of Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. During the demonstrations, activists spray-painted the office interiors with water-soluble red paint, causing what Allianz claims is more than £79,000 in physical damage.
Criminal charges of criminal damage, aggravated trespass, and obstruction were initially filed against the six activists, though those charges have since been narrowed to a single count of criminal damage. The criminal trials are currently scheduled to begin in October 2026 and January 2028, respectively.
On Monday, Judge Alan Johns rejected the activists’ request to put the civil case on hold until after the criminal proceedings conclude. The ruling allows Allianz to pursue a total claim of £289,604 in damages plus additional legal fees, a figure that grew substantially after the company added £200,000 in symbolic “reputational damage and commercial embarrassment” damages earlier this year. The additional damages were tacked on after the activists asked Allianz to delay the civil suit to align with criminal proceedings.
Activists argue the expanded claim amounts to an unfair “protest licence fee” designed to intimidate them out of exercising their right to political demonstration. One defendant, community worker Seren John-Wood, told Middle East Eye that the group targeted Allianz specifically because of its ties to Elbit Systems, which supplies roughly 85% of the drones used by the Israeli military. In a notable development, Allianz reportedly dropped its coverage of Elbit Systems late last year.
John-Wood emphasized that Allianz’s push for an early civil trial is a deliberate strategic choice to avoid a jury trial, a right only available in UK criminal courts.
“This attempt to move the case away from the criminal courts, where we are not able to access financial support for legal representation and have our cases heard by juries, is as appalling as it is unprecedented,” John-Wood said.
The defendants, all ordinary members of the public, lack the financial resources to hire legal representation for the civil suit, where the burden of proof is far lower than in criminal court. By contrast, Allianz reported a $20.1 billion operating profit in 2025, highlighting the stark power imbalance between the corporate claimant and the individual defendants. If Allianz wins the civil suit, the damages would be seized from the activists’ personal savings and future earnings, a outcome that would almost certainly leave them facing permanent financial ruin.
John-Wood argued that the ruling exposes a calculated effort to stifle pro-Palestine protest. “Allianz has seen that there is a groundswell of support for Palestine actions and there is a precedent for juries acquitting pro-Palestine activists,” she explained. “We took action and are prepared to face legal consequences in a criminal court as we believe we are not guilty. But this attempt to avoid a jury trial is unacceptable.”
Fellow defendant and writer Renee Eshel echoed those concerns, framing the civil action as an intimidation tactic intended to silence opposition to Allianz’s past business practices. “Allianz ordering us to civil courts while our criminal cases are pending indicates they are using intimidatory fear tactics to bully us into submission and to deter future activists from exposing their complicity in war crimes through Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people,” Eshel said.