Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
49. There were no similar incidents in September 2022 at the other two Sites, namely the Oakthorpe and Leeds Sites. 50. However, there were a number of other actions taken in relation to the dairy campaign between 3 and 8 September 2022. These included protests on 4 September at three sites owned by Muller, entering two Muller facilities on 5 September, disrupting three dairy sites on 6 September (including one of Muller), staging a sit in at four supermarkets and preventing customers at those stores accessing dairy and meat products, staging a protest at Westminster, and again entering a Muller facility on 8 September, blocking entry to the site and gluing themselves to the entry to the site. 51. The period of protest was temporarily paused on 8 September because of the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Developments since September 2022 52. When the matter came back before Fancourt J on 4 October 2022 for the return date of the injunction, the Claimants applied to add 31 persons as named defendants in light of their involvement in the September 2022 incidents, and an order was made continuing the injunction and adding them. 53. Following the pause for the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Animal Rebellion engaged in a number of pieces of direct action protest in October to December 2022, including attending Fortnum & Mason, Harrods and supermarkets in London, Norwich, Manchester and Edinburgh and pouring milk taken from the shelves of those shops onto the floor. Three of the individuals named in the 25 October 2022 order appear each to have been involved in or linked to one of the acts. Of the remaining named defendants, Rosa Sharkey is stated in an Animal Rebellion website article to be the spokesperson for the 12 supporters of Animal Rebellion who broke into and took 18 beagle puppies from the MBR Acres facility in Wyton, Cambridgeshire on 20 December 2022. 54. As explained above, the final disposal of the claim was adjourned in light of the Supreme Court proceedings in the Wolverhampton case. 55. There have not been any further cases of direct action against the dairy industry since the matters set out above. Animal Rising have focused largely, although not exclusively, on animal-related sporting events in 2023, such as high-profile horse racing events, although there was at least one farming-related incident, where three Animal Rising activists entered the Appleton Farm on the Sandringham Estate, from which they removed three lambs without the permission of the owner of the animals. 56. However, the Claimants remain concerned that future acts of direct action and protest will occur. This is largely for a combination of the following reasons: (1) The Animal Rebellion website continues to seek the support of new activists. (2) The August 2022 website entry described the September 2022 intended action as the start of a long-term civil resistance project that stated that it would include large scale disruption. (3) That website specifically, in its reporting of the 2021 incident, named and targeted Arla as a large dairy producer. (4) The campaign against the dairy industry has, from Animal Rising's perspective, not been won. (5) On the contrary, the plan to bring about a transition to a plant-based system by 2025 is now more pressing than ever given how close 2025 is. Given that the Claimants supply 40% of milk to UK supermarkets, and the stated aim of Animal Rising of stopping the supply of dairy to UK supermarkets, achieving their aim is likely in their minds to involve further action against the Claimants' Sites. (6) The Claimants consider that the September 2022 action was not as extensive as Animal Rebellion had hoped, given the statements made on its website in August 2022 about the scale of the action planned. (7) There was further direct action in October to December 2022, including in relation to the dairy industry. (8) The Claimants consider that the absence of action since September 2022 is a product in large part of the injunctions in place. Therefore, were they to fall away, that deterrent would be lost. They accept that the September 2022 action against the Claimants occurred despite the injunction, but contend that other dairy and distribution sites, particularly those operated by Muller, appeared to be disproportionately targeted, and the Claimants infer this is because Muller has no such injunction.
194
© 2025 Thomson Reuters.
10
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator