Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
January 2023 application, the final disposal of the claim was adjourned pending the expedited appeal to the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council and Others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] 2 WLR 45 , which concerned whether injunctions could be granted against persons unknown and if so what the test for doing so should be. Following the handing down of the Supreme Court decision in Wolverhampton on 29 November 2023, the case was brought on for a final hearing before me to deal with the disposal of the claim against the identified Defendants and a continuation of the injunction order against the defendant persons unknown. This is my judgment following that hearing.
5. Therefore, the Defendants fall into two categories: 34 named or identified Defendants and six categories of persons unknown. 33 of the former category of Defendants are named and one- the 40th Defendant- identified by photograph. All 33 of the named Defendants have now agreed to stays of the proceedings through consent orders in return for the giving of undertakings.
6. That leaves the 40th defendant, who is identified by image 1 at Schedule 1A of the re-Amended Claim Form but whose name is not known by the Claimants and therefore who cannot be asked by them to sign an undertaking.
7. A number of the signed draft consent orders supplied to the Claimants at midnight the day before the hearing contained an error in the main body of it, so I agreed not to provide a draft judgment for 24 hours in order that these could be corrected, and I have duly made the consent orders in the terms sought.
8. The Claimants were represented before me by Caroline Bolton and Natalie Pratt. I am grateful for their submissions. The Defendants did not appear, were not represented, and have not acknowledged service or filed any evidence in the proceedings.
Decision 9. For the reasons set out below, I grant the order sought.
10. I shall take first the relevant factual background, before setting out the law and then applying it.
Relevant factual background 11. Animal Rising have two stated objections to the dairy industry: what they see as its contribution to climate change and its use of animals in the production of milk. For convenience, I shall refer to the individuals involved as animal rights protestors in this judgment.
12. The Claimants have adduced witness evidence from a number of sources: (1) Four individuals to explain, among other things, the operation of the sites and the past actions on them: Joanne Taylor (Aylesbury), Melanie Savage (Hatfield); David Dons (Oakthorpe) and Anne-Frances Ball (Leeds); (2) Nicholas McQueen (partner) and James Damarell (senior associate) of Walker Morris LLP, their solicitors; (3) one of their directors; Afshin Amirahmadi; and (4) Samantha Sage, the Quality, Environmental, Health and Safety Manager at the Aylesbury Site.
188
© 2025 Thomson Reuters.
4
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator