Jockey Club v Persons unknown
SIR ANTHONY MANN Approved Judgment
statement that its own disruptive activities in that area have been suspended indefinitely, which I do not accept is a strong enough assertion.
11. There has, however, been a recent change in the website. The claimant has made an application to adduce further evidence as part of its duty of full and frank disclosure. During the hearing I indicated that I would allow in the new evidence and give reasons in this judgment. That evidence takes the form of a witness statement of Julian Diaz- Rainey, a solicitor at Pinsent Masons, solicitors acting for the claimant. In that witness statement Mr Diaz-Rainey provides evidence that the Animal Rising website has recently been updated to remove references to plans to disrupt horse-racing activities. The material to which Mr Truesdale referred in his second witness statement which professed an intention to disrupt in that way have been removed – indeed the pages which evidence that intention have been removed. It is not known when that change happened, but it must be since Mr Truesdale’s second witness statement. That is drawn to my attention because, quite properly, the claimant is aware of its obligation to draw adverse material to my attention. 12. I allow that evidence in in order that the claimant can fulfil its obligation of full and frank disclosure. Mr Diaz- Rainey’s witness statement goes on to point out, as a counter to his earlier disclosure, that Animal Rising has not given up its challenge to the horse- racing industry and its intention to try to stop it, and that it trumpets what it calls its successes to date. This material appears in website and Facebook postings. I allow that evidence too. It is a legitimate counter to the evidence disclosed under the full and frank disclosure obligation.
13.
The result of this evidence is the following findings, which I make:
i) The claimant is the freehold owner of the racecourse property which it is trying to protect.
ii) Animal rights protesters have no legal right to be on the property in order to carry out disruptive protests.
iii) Despite Animal Rising’s statement that is it suspending the disruption of horse - racing activities, there remains a serious risk that its members, or others, will try to disrupt the claim ant’s races in order to gain publicity unless restrained by this court. It is not possible to identify the individuals who would be concerned, but nonetheless there is a very serious risk. iv) That disruption, if it occurred, would give rise to a serious risk to life and limb of humans and horses, and would cause damage to the Jockey Club of the nature referred to in my earlier judgment. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for any disruption to racing activities. v) The disruption would be an actionable trespass and an actionable interference with the claimant’s rights to hold races under the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act 1984 (see my earlier judgment) and to manage its part of the Downs accordingly.
7
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator