THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
sub-paragraph (5) would prohibit the named Defendants to whom it applied and the Thirty-First and Thirty-Second Defendants “Persons Unknown” from attempting to “ compel and coerce ” any staff member of the First Claimant, contractors of the First Claimant working at the Wyton Site and staff of Impex, to “ cease their lawful activities for or on behalf of the First Claimant ” by doing any of the acts in sub- paragraphs (a) to (c). 15. The Claimants have withdrawn those parts of the variation application which sought to impose further restrictions on both named Defendants and “Persons Unknown” (in various categories) prohibiting: (1) the use of mirrors, torches or other devices to obscure the vision of a person driving a vehicle that is entering or exiting the Wyton Site; (2) the installation or positioning of CCTV or other surveillance equipment (including drones) to record activities at the Wyton Site; (3) the knowing entry or remaining on any premises and/or land and/or residence belonging to or occupied by any Protected Person; and (4) the photographing or videoing of members of the First Claimant’s staff and/or any person accessing, exiting, or carrying out lawful activities at the Wyton Site, without lawful excuse or the express permission of the First Claimant. 16. I was sceptical that the Claimants could establish a proper legal basis for these restrictions, and in respect of some of them (e.g. the restrictions on CCTV footage), the Particulars of Claim contained no recognisable claim which would justify the grant of interim relief in the terms sought. Some time was taken up, at the hearing on 25 July 2022, considering the legal basis for restrictions on drone usage and whether, and if so, in what circumstances and at what height, flying a drone over land is an actionable trespass. I had refused to grant an interim injunction to prohibit drone flying on 10 November 2021 (see [2021] EWHC 2996 [111]-[115]). Had the application in respect of drones been maintained, I would have needed to consider whether the Claimants should be allowed a second opportunity to advance what was, essentially, the same argument that had been rejected last year. In the event, the Claimants withdrew that part of their application before the hearing on 7 October 2022. 17. There were also added complications as to both the grant, and the enforcement, of an interim injunction against “Persons Unknown” in relation to drone use. Permission for alternative service of the Claim Form on the Thirty-Third Defendants “Persons Unknown” has not yet been granted. Unless the Claim Form is properly served – if necessary pursuant to an order for alternative service – the jurisdiction of the Court will not have been established over the relevant defendant (or category of defendant) and, in consequence, there can be no question of any interim relief being granted. That, in turn, raises questions as to whether a method of alternative service could be devised that would bring the claim to the attention of all of those in the class of the Thirty-Third Defendants “Persons Unknown”: see discussion in LB Barking & Dagenham -v- Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) [46]-[48]. I will need to return to this issue when considering the variation in paragraph (5) sought by the Claimants (see [71]-[72] and [75] below).
397
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator