Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
xi) Where possible, the claimant must take reasonable steps to draw the application to the attention of those likely to be affected – paragraph 226. xii) Effective notice of the order must be given, and the court must disclose to the court all steps intended to achieve that – paragraphs 230ff. xiii) The order must contain a generous liberty to apply – paragraph 232. xiv) The court will need to consider whether a cross-undertaking in damages is appropriate even though the application is not technically one for an interim injunction where such undertakings are generally required. 19. The court recognised that not all the general requirements laid down will be applicable in protester, as opposed to Traveller, cases. I have borne that in mind, and have, as I have indicated, omitted reference to some of the matters which do not seem to me to be likely to apply in protester cases."
© 2025 Thomson Reuters. 19 (h) While there have not been direct acts against the Claimants since the September 2022 incidents, in my judgment there is a strong probability that this is because of the injunctions in place. Refusing to order a final injunction would immediately come to the notice of Animal Rising, who the Claimants' solicitors have been corresponding with over the consent orders, and therefore in my judgment there is a strong probability that this would be regarded as removing an 203 100. The cumulative reasons why I consider that question (1) should be answered in the affirmative are as follows: (a) The 40th Defendant was involved in the action against Arla on 8 September 2022. (b) Further, she was willing to trespass on the Claimant's land to do so. (c) On the basis of the video evidence before me, I consider that she was filming the incident for Animal Rebellion, including for example the damaging of HGV tyres, and infer that her involvement with their cause therefore did not end immediately at the end of the action on the 8th September 2022. (d) She appears to me to have left the scene before she could be arrested. This is what the video evidence before me suggests and Ms Savage explains that it appears that she is the third protestor that the Hertfordshire Constabulary believe fled the scene. The other two were arrested in the days following the incident. Therefore, at present she has not faced any sanction that I am aware of for her past actions that would deter her from future action. (e) The mission statement of Animal Rebellion stated that the acts in September 2022 were " the beginning of a long term civil resistance project ". This ties in with their stated desire to bring about a transition from reliance on the dairy industry by 2025, which has not yet from their perspective been achieved. (f) These views are plainly strongly held by those participating, and I have no reason to doubt that this includes the 40th Defendant. (g) Arla, as producer of 40% of the milk in the UK, is an obvious target for Animal Rising. 97. As comes through clearly from the above extracts, an injunction against persons unknown, who I shall refer to as "newcomers" as in Wolverhampton , is a novel exercise of an equitable discretionary power and therefore its limits and requirements must be carefully articulated and observed. Applying the law to the facts Precautionary injunction against named defendants 98. In my judgment, there is a strong probability that unless restrained by an injunction the 40th Defendant will act in breach of the Claimants' rights, and it is just and convenient that an injunction be ordered in the terms applied for by the Claimants. 99. I shall: (1) start with the question of whether there is a strong probability that the 40th defendant will be involved in action in the future against the Claimants if not restrained by injunction, then (2) consider whether such action would be in breach of the Claimants' rights, and (3) then consider whether it is just and convenient to grant an injunction.
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator