Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
Evidence must err on the side of caution 125. Further, the evidence has satisfied this requirement, and as far I can see has been careful not to overstate the position.
Identifying the respondents to the application as precisely as possible 126. In my judgment the order sought does so. The means of identification are in the same form as the orders previously granted by Bacon J and Fancourt J. As summarised at paragraph 40 above, the qualifying conditions for falling into the category of respondents are clear and precise, and focus on carrying out particular acts of interference with the Sites and access to them, such as affixing themselves or any items to any of the relevant roads for the purpose of disrupting vehicle access to the Sites and protesting, to take one example. Is the injunction clear in its terms and confined to the minimum necessary to achieve its proper purpose? 127. The Claimants seek orders in the same substantive form as granted previously, subject to the temporal limits set out below. Those orders were, and the present order sought is, clearly drafted. The Claimants have not gone further, despite the breaches of the order, and the order sought allows for peaceful protest in the manner set out in paragraph 107(3) above. Rather it focuses on particular acts that would disrupt the Claimants' operations at the Sites. Therefore, I am satisfied that it does not go beyond the minimum necessary to achieve its purpose. Is there a strict temporal and territorial limit? 128. As in the Jockey Club case, I agree that the one year period that the Supreme Court thought prima facie appropriate in Travellers cases is too short to deal with a campaign such as that of the animal rights activists. That can readily be seen from the fact that incidents have already occurred in 2020, 2021 and 2022. However, given those annual events in my judgment an annual review is more appropriate in case the position changes in the interim, as has been sought by the Claimants, and as was ordered in the Jockey Club case. The annual review will allow a continued assessment of whether circumstances have changed so as make the continuation of the injunction appropriate and the five year maximum adds an appropriate end-point. In my judgment, it would not be appropriate to require the Claimants to incur the costs of applying each year for a new or renewed injunction. Rather the review should be of whether the position has developed since the last review.
129. The territorial extent of the order is clearly set out in the maps and plans annexed to it. It is broadly limited to the roads immediately surrounding the sites, and the Claimants have not sought to include the larger roads such as the A41 to which they lead, and some of which were blocked by the earlier actions. Similarly, they have not sought to include their other dairy-related sites beyond the Sites, despite the breaches of the original injunctions order made. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is a strict territorial limit.
Have reasonable steps been taken to bring the application to the attention of those likely affected? 130. In my judgment, it has. The documents in the claim, including notice of this hearing, have been served on the named defendants and persons unknown in accordance with the alternative service orders made. The methods of service have included e-mail, posting on the Claimants' social media pages and notices at the Sites.
Is the proposed notice of the Order likely to be effective?
207
© 2025 Thomson Reuters.
23
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator