Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
important impediment to taking direct action against Arla. It is true that the September 2022 incidents occurred despite the injunction, but they were considerably smaller than one would have taken from the plan on the website in August 2022, so it appears to me very likely that the injunction had some deterrent effect. 101. I have considered specifically whether the absence of acts against Arla since September 2022 suggests that further incidents of direct action against Arla are unlikely, or at least means that there is not a strong probability of them in the event of me declining to grant the injunction. 102. However, I consider that the features above, taken in combination, suggest that there is a strong probability. 103. I do not consider that the change to the website shortly before the hearing affects this. It does not indicate a shift in the views of Animal Rising towards the dairy industry, one would not expect such a shift, and Animal Rising knew of the impending Court date at the time the website was changed so I am reluctant to regard it as indicating a significant shift in their intended plans. Further, the first route stated in the current version of the website for achieving change is " [b]y generating a national conversation on the need to transform our food system with bold and impactful campaigns ", which wording seems to me to encompass direct action to disrupt the supply of dairy and food that is reliant on animals. 104. I have also taken into account in this regard that the Leeds Site has not been the subject of action to date. 105. I consider that these anticipated actions would be in breach of the Claimants' rights. 106. Some of the past action occurred in the Sites themselves, and therefore amounted to trespass, and I would expect that to be repeated in the future. 107. As far as public nuisance is concerned: (1) The past acts deliberately obstructed the relevant parts of the highway to a significant degree in a way that was designed to, and did, disrupt the Claimants' business, albeit temporarily, to a significant extent and caused them significant financial loss, together with affecting members of the public who needed or wished to use the highway and other surrounding roads that could be blocked through its obstruction. A good example of this is the blocking of College Road during the incident at the Aylesbury Site on 4 September, when protestors climbed aboard and occupied vehicles on the road. Therefore, Articles 10 and 11 aside, it would constitute a public nuisance and this is the type of action that would likely be repeated absent an injunction because it is part of disrupting the passage of vehicles to and from the Sites. (2) I have carefully considered the factors set out in Ziegler to be taken into account when assessing proportionality, which I summarised at paragraph 81 above. Taking them in turn: (a) Future protests of the same type would breach domestic law for the reasons given in relation to trespass, public nuisance and access to the highway set out in this section of my judgment. (b) The location of the protests is important to the protestors, because their intended aim is to disrupt the supply of milk from the Sites and therefore the obvious location for their action is at and immediately outside the Sites. (c) The protests were significant in duration, lasting in one case for 24 hours. Unlike in Ziegler , they were not a one- off one-hour occurrence, and one cannot expect future incidents to be. (d) Future protests are likely to involve occupation of and climbing aboard vehicles on the highway. (e) Their significant duration together with the other features of the action, caused significant financial harm to the Claimants by disrupting their supply of milk. Unlike in Ziegler there is not an alternative route of access: the Sites were and could again be completely blocked. Further, the protests are likely to block entire roads, as was the case at the Aylesbury Site in 2021, when the A41 was blocked for most of the 24 hour period, making the road impassable to all. Moreover, the road outside the Sites give immediate access to major roads, or are in close proximity to them, so the obstructions affect the public at large. The other obvious impact of successful action is that this could restrict the amount of milk on supermarket shelves for a period. (f) The views giving rise to the protest do relate to important issues, namely climate change and animal welfare, both of which are prominent features of current public and political debate. (g) The protestors plainly believe in their cause and are prepared to risk arrest to take such action. (3) I also take into account the fact that the past actions, and likely future acts, go beyond attempts to persuade Arla of the correctness of Animal Rising's aims, into seeking to disrupt their business in a way that will assist in bringing about change in the dairy industry. Therefore, the action intends harm to Arla as a necessary feature of its intended ends, and correspondingly an injunction leaves it open to carry out peaceful protest through acts like standing on the pavement with
204
© 2025 Thomson Reuters.
20
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator