MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
pursue a claim for harassment against “Persons Unknown” (or contra mundum ) at the end of the trial. I: The evidence at trial: generally 127. Before turning to the evidence relating to specific incidents, I should set out the evidence that was adduced at the trial and deal with some general issues. Some of the most important evidence at the trial were extracts of CCTV footage of various incidents. At the time the evidence for trial was prepared, the Wyton Site had 30 CCTV cameras in various locations. The security team are also equipped with body-worn cameras in certain situations. 128. The following witnesses were called by the Claimants at trial: (1) Susan Pressick; (2) Wendy Jarrett; (3) David Manning; (4) Demetrius Markou; (5) Employee A; (6) Employee AF; (6) Employee B; (7) Employee F; (8) Employee G; (9) Employee H; (10) Employee J; (11) Employee L; (12) Employee V; and (13) the Production Manager. 129. Anonymity orders were made for some of the witnesses. This was to protect the relevant witnesses from the risk of reprisal. The evidence has demonstrated that a small minority of individuals (not Mr Curtin) have sought to target those whom they identify as being employees of the First Claimant. At the trial, the anonymised witnesses gave their evidence via video link, in public, but with their identity protected. That was achieved by the Court, initially, sitting temporarily in private, during which the witness appeared on screen and was sworn. The screen was then deactivated, and the Court went back into open Court for the witness to be questioned on his/her evidence. 130. Some of the witnesses were not anonymised. For some, their names were well known to the protestors so anonymising them would have served no real purpose. Nevertheless, I have decided to adopt a cautious approach to naming them in this judgment. That is because, once handed down, this judgment, will become a public record. 131. The Claimants also relied upon witness statements of four witnesses, as hearsay, who were not called to give evidence: Employee C; Employee I; Employee P; and Jane Read. 132. Finally, Mr Curtin gave evidence at the trial. This largely consisted of his being cross-examined by Ms Bolton over three days. 133. The existence and availability of extensive CCTV recordings of the incidents means that there are no material disputes of fact that require me to decide between accounts given in the oral evidence. When I deal in the next Section of the judgment with the various incidents relied upon by the Claimants, I will refer to the evidence of the Claimants’ witnesses. Before that, I should refer to the key witnesses for the Claimants who gave evidence relevant to the claim as a whole. (1) Susan Pressick 134. Ms Pressick has provided many witness statements (and several Affidavits) during the litigation. She is employed by the Third Claimant as the Site Manager & UK Administration & European Quality Manager for the UK subsidiaries of Marshall Farm
104
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator