THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
57. Based on this, Ms Bolton contended that, unless the Court granted an injunction against the named Defendants in the same terms as was granted against “Persons Unknown”, it would similarly “ neuter ” the effect of the injunction. E: Decision ( 1) Should the interim injunction be varied to add sub-paragraph (6)? 58. I will take this proposed variation first, as it is straightforward. I refuse to grant it. 59. This proposed restriction was something of an afterthought. It was not included in the original application for the variation to the interim injunction. None of the named Defendants is alleged to have carried out these acts. The Particulars of Claim currently include no claim which would support the grant of interim relief. The acts complained of involve, it appears, the commission of the criminal offence of criminal damage. The noticeboard is situated within an area covered by the First Claimant’s CCTV, which means it should be a relatively straightforward matter to identify those who have carried out the alleged damage (even if they cannot immediately be named). If reporting these incidents to the police (and providing them with the necessary CCTV evidence) does not produce a satisfactory outcome, then the Claimants may be able to apply to amend their Claim Form and Particulars of Claim and thereafter to make a targeted application for interim relief against those people who can be shown to have carried out the acts of spray-painting or other damage (even if such people cannot be named and have to be identified by a cipher – like the Twenty-Fifth Defendant). Any claim against such a person will require the Claimants to make an application for an order for alternative service of the Claim Form which, in turn, will require the Claimants to provide satisfactory evidence that the proposed method of alternative service can reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the relevant defendant(s). Until those steps are taken, the Court is not able to consider an application for interim relief. (2) Should the interim injunction be modified to add sub-paragraph (5) against the named Defendants? 60. In my judgment it should not. 61. The variation to the interim injunction order sought by the Claimants, if granted, is likely to affect the exercise of the Convention rights to freedom of expression and the right to protest. As such, s.12 Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged. Therefore, the Claimants must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed in obtaining an injunction in these terms after a trial: see discussion in the Injunction Judgment [80]-[85]. 62. As Ms Bolton accepted, at the hearing on 7 October 2022, Ms Pressick’s evidence in support of the variation application makes allegations and contains evidence against only five named Defendants. In summary of the detail which is set out above, that evidence amounts to the following (with references to paragraphs in the judgment above): (1) In respect of the Third Defendant: (a) verbal abuse of the Impex Managing Director on 18 January 2022 ([29(1)]); (b) presence at an Impex demonstration
421
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator