Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
imminent, and imminent means in this context " not premature " rather than immediate. This chimes with the approach of Julian Knowles J in his HS2 decision at [176]-[177]. As he explained at [176], " [a]s the authorities make clear, the terms 'real' and 'imminent' are to be judged in context and the court's overall task is to do justice between the parties and to guard against prematurity ". I am satisfied for the reasons set out above that there is a real and imminent risk if I do not grant an injunction of further direct action occurring.
118. There are a number of reasons why the Claimants have sought an order against persons unknown rather than limit the order to named or otherwise specifically identified defendants, and in my judgment they are compelling ones:
(1) It has not been possible to identify all protestors who might undertake future action. (2) The evidence before me is that the Animal Rising site continues to recruit new members. (3) It is an organisation whose membership fluctuates.
(4) While the Claimants known the identity of the group, they do not know the identity of all individuals involved with it. (5) The Claimants do not have confidence that all those who participated in the earlier acts have been arrested.
119. Similarly, given the difficulty in identifying the membership of Animal Rising, its fluctuating membership and the presence of like-minded protest groups, in my judgment there is also a compelling reason not to limit the definition of persons unknown to those who are members of Animal Rising.
120. As explained above, the Claimants have put in place significant security measures at their Sites, and sought to improve them after the September 2022 incidents. It is not realistic to suppose these will completely prevent future action, and nor would sensible levels of policing or the use of byelaws.
121. The harm that could be caused by future unlawful acts is serious, consistent with the intended purpose of such action being to significantly disrupt the supply of dairy products.
122. Taking these reasons for relief together with the limits of the restrictions imposed by the injunction explained above, in my judgment there is a compelling justification for the remedy.
123. As in relation to the injunction against identified persons, I have considered whether anything in section 12(2) or (3) of the HRA should cause me not to order such an injunction. In my judgment, there are compelling reasons why the persons unknown cannot be notified before the order is made before the alternative service of the previous documents, such as by posting on the Claimants' site or by notices put at the perimeter of the Sites, as their identity is not known. In any event they will be notified insofar as is practicable through the alternative service routes after the order is made. In my judgment, s.12(3) is not violated for similar reasons to those set out in paragraph 111 above. The order does not restrain what can be published, so section 12(3) is not engaged, and even if it is, the acts apprehended are unlawful and interfere significantly with the rights at others, so I am satisfied that the Claimants are likely to obtain the relief sought at a final hearing (if there was one).
Full and frank disclosure 124. The Claimants have complied with this duty, including drawing to my attention a number of points that may be taken against their position. I have dealt above with the update to the Animal Rising website.
206
© 2025 Thomson Reuters.
22
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator