Jockey Club v Persons unknown
SIR ANTHONY MANN Approved Judgment
Sir Anthony Mann :
Background
1. This is the disposal hearing of these Part 8 proceedings in which the claimant, the Jockey Club, seeks a continuation of injunctive relief against persons unknown to restrain them from trespassing on certain parts of their property at Epsom racecourse. 2. This action has its origins in a fear of the claimant that its running of the Derby race in June 2023 would be disrupted by animal rights protesters, orchestrated, at least to some extent, by a loose association known as Animal Rising. That association (if that is the right word) does not have any apparent corporate or unincorporated existence, but it appears to be a form of movement in which those interested in its objectives can participate. Its object seems to be to prevent what it considers to be cruelty to animals which is said to take various forms, including, for present purposes, horseracing. It has a website whose content has a significance to these proceedings. 3. The claimant is the freehold owner of land at Epsom which comprises the racecourse and a number of ancillary buildings and areas. Its rights are, however, circumscribed by various rights of the public in relation to Epsom Downs. The scope of the ownership, and the nature of those public rights, appear from a previous judgement of mine on an application for an interim injunction which I granted in May 2023 – see [2023] EWHC 1811 (Ch). I do not propose to set out again here matters appearing in that judgement; they should, so far as necessary, be taken as incorporated in this judgement. 4. In 2023, before the running of the Derby, the claimant became aware of a threat to disrupt the running of the Derby by entering various parts of the Jockey club land and, in various potential ways, interfering with the race. Attempts had previously been made to disrupt the running of the Grand National, and indeed the start of that race in that year was delayed as a result. In those circumstances the Jockey club commenced these proceedings in order to restrain interference with its running of the race. 5. An application for an interim injunction was made to me and I granted it. The reasons for the grant of that injunction appear in the judgement to which I have just made reference. An account of the background to the grant of the injunction, and to the circumstances of my granting it, appear fully in that judgement and again I do not propose to repeat them here. They should be treated as incorporated into this judgement. In particular, that judgement explains the various areas of the racecourse affected. 6. At the time of the commencement of these proceedings and of the hearing of the injunction the claimant had been able to identify one particular individual who it was thought was threatening to interfere with the race. That was a Mr Daniel Kidby, and he was made the first defendant to the proceedings. Otherwise the claimant was unable to identify the various animal activists who threatened or planned to disrupt the race. In those circumstances they sought an injunction against persons unknown described in various ways by reference to the geographical or topographical areas which it was anticipated would be or might be affected. That was in line with authorities at the time dealing with the obtaining of injunctions against persons unknown. How that technique worked in practice is apparent from the heading to this judgment.
5
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator