Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
57. Therefore, the Claimants seek draft orders, with the same substantive restrictions as in the orders sought before and granted by Bacon J and Fancourt J, but for five years with annual review in respect of the element of the order relating to persons unknown. 58. It was explained to me, in response to a question that I asked during the hearing, that the website was changed around 10 days before the hearing, and that as part of this it removed reference to the specific plan to bring about a transition to a plant-based system by 2025. I asked for a witness statement to evidence the points that I was told of orally, and this was duly provided the next day. While I think it would have been desirable for this to be provided before the hearing started, I consider it appropriate to admit this in so that the duty of full and frank disclosure can be satisfied. 59. The website appears to have been revamped. As part of the description of Animal Rising's activities, it states that " the key solution to these challenges [the challenges caused by the animal farming and fishing industries] is to support farming and fishing communities in the necessary and urgent transition to a sustainable and just plant-based food system ". The " How We Achieve It " section contains three routes. The first is " [b]y generating a national conversation on the need to transform our food system with bold and impactful campaigns ", the second is supporting local people to create change for themselves, and the third is building alliances with key stakeholders. There is a page on previous campaigns, which states under " 2022 PLANT-BASED FUTURE " that those involved " successfully stopped the supply of milk to supermarkets across the South of England ". The evidence relating to the named defendants who have not signed consent orders 60. Finally, I set out a summary of the evidence in relation to the remaining identified defendant who has- necessarily- not signed a consent order, namely the 40th Defendant. 61. The 40th Defendant appears to be female and have blue hair on the basis of a video taken of the 8 September incident at the Hatfield Site. There is video evidence of her trespassing on the Hatfield Site during the 8 September 2022 incident and filming the activities of the Animal Rebellion protestors. Such filming appears to have been carried out for Animal Rebellion, who post footage of their incidents on their website. In the video evidence, she is seen leaving the site by herself before arrests were made. The legal test 62. The injunction is sought to restrain: (1) trespass on the Claimants' Sites; (2) interference with the Claimants' common law rights, and the rights of their assigns and licensees, to access the highway from the Claimants' Sites; and (3) public nuisance caused by obstruction of the highway.
63. I shall start with the requirements of (1), (2) and (3), and then deal with what must be shown in the present case to order (a) an injunction against the 40th Defendant as an identified defendant and (b) against persons unknown.
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. 65. The Claimants submitted that deciding whether a trespass has occurred (or in the present case would or might occur in the future) does not involve any balancing of the Claimants' rights to possession with the Defendants' rights of expression or freedom of assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( "ECHR" ), because: (1) Articles 10 and 11 do not include any right to trespass when exercising those rights: Boyd v Ineos Upstream Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 515 at [36]-[37] per Longmore LJ; (2) trespass is a blatant and significant interference with the Claimants' rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR; and 195 11 Trespass to land 64. Starting with trespass to land, that consists of any unjustifiable intrusion by one person upon land in the possession of another. No further elaboration is necessary for present purposes.
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator