MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Curtin
an opportunity to supplement the evidence against Mr Curtin. The evidence against him was presented at the trial. Even had I taken this evidence into account, it would not have made any difference to my conclusions in relation to this aspect of the claim against Mr Curtin. He does not deny flying a drone. His evidence is that he flies it no lower than 50 metres. Ms Pressick’s further evidence therefore takes the claim against him no further. 320. The evidence satisfies me that there is a risk that “Persons Unknown” may in the future fly drones over the Wyton Site. However, beyond the particular evidence of drone having crashed, the Claimants have failed to adduce reliable evidence as to the height at which any drone has been flown (or is likely in the future to be flown). Without that, it is impossible to conclude that there is a credible risk of trespass by drone flying. (3) Threatened trespass at the B&K Site 321. In her witness statement, Ms Pressick included a section headed “ Protest activities at the B&K Hull Site ”. She recognises, immediately, that the scale of protest activities has been much reduced at the B&K Site. Between June-July 2021, staff at the B&K Site received what Ms Pressick describes as “ threatening calls ” and there was a protest event held at the B&K Site on 15 August 2021 which was attended by some 40 people. The Claimants make no complaint about this demonstration. Much of Ms Pressick’s evidence concerning the B&K Site was considered in the Interim Injunction Judgment (see [22]-[23]). At that stage, the evidence was being advanced in support of a claim for an interim injunction to restrain harassment. I refused to grant any injunction on that basis: [129(4)]. The Claimants have adduced no evidence that there has been any trespass at the B&K Site. Ms Pressick states in her evidence:
“[The Third Claimant], its staff and myself apprehend that the protestors may focus, or refocus, on the B&K Site. Given that [the First and Third Claimants] are sister companies, there would be real benefit in the final injunction applying to both sites so that injunctive relief over the Wyton Site does not simply move the acts of unlawful protest over to the B&K Hull Site… [The Third Claimant] continues to receive nuisance calls. I understand from the staff on the switch board that sometimes the callers are silent and, on occasion, they express a negative view of the work that B&K does. It is therefore clear that the B&K Hull Site is still on the radar of animal rights protestors, and that it is reasonable for the Claimants to apprehend that acts of protest similar to those occurring at the Wyton Site may occur at the B&K Hull Site.”
322. This evidence is very tenuous and involves a significant leap between the willingness of unidentified people to register displeasure with the activities of the Third Claimant in messages and calls and a real risk that, without an injunction, “Persons Unknown” will trespass upon the B&K Site. As I have noted, there is no evidence at anyone has trespassed at the B&K Site since the protests began in the summer of 2021. On the evidence, I am not satisfied that there is a credible threat of trespass at the B&K Site by “Persons Unknown”. (4) Interference with the right of access to the highway 323. Again, it would be disproportionate to identify all the occasions on which vehicles entering or leaving the Wyton Site had been obstructed prior to the grant of the Interim
149
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator