RWE Npower plc & Ors v Carrol & Ors [2007] EWHC 947 (QB) (27 April 2007)

RWE Npower plc & Ors v Carrol & Ors [2007] EWHC 947 (QB) (27 April 2007)

The evidence justifies continuation of the injunction restraining harassment and trespass by the named Defendants and those acting in concert with them using unlawful means. The scope of the injunction must be proportionate and not unduly restrict lawful protest. The First Defendant is properly sued as a representative of a defined group acting unlawfully, but enforcement against unnamed represented persons requires court permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b).

Citation
[2007] EWHC 947 (QB)
Parties
First Claimant: RWE Npower plc; Second Claimant: John Patrick Rainford; First Defendant: Rev. Malcolm Carrol; Second Defendant: David Howarth; Third Defendant: Mike Powell; Fourth Defendant: Christopher Ward; Fifth Defendant: Anthony Bailey; Sixth Defendant: Dr. Peter Harbour
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (continuation) / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction continued with modifications
Legal Topics
Harassment, Trespass, Representative Actions, Injunctions, Freedom of Protest, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 19.6
Civil Procedure Tort Public Order Harassment Trespass Representative Actions Injunctions Freedom of Protest +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RWE Npower plc

First Claimant

John Patrick Rainford

Second Claimant

Rev. Malcolm Carrol

First Defendant

David Howarth

Second Defendant

Mike Powell

Third Defendant

Christopher Ward

Fourth Defendant

Anthony Bailey

Fifth Defendant

Dr. Peter Harbour

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (continuation) / Interlocutory Hearing on Continuation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunction restraining harassment and trespass should be continued against the Defendants and represented persons
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the injunction is proportionate and compatible with rights of peaceful protest and freedom of expression
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant is properly sued as a representative defendant under CPR 19.6 and the definition of the represented group

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence justifies continuation of the injunction restraining harassment and trespass by the named Defendants and those acting in concert with them using unlawful means. The scope of the injunction must be proportionate and not unduly restrict lawful protest. The First Defendant is properly sued as a representative of a defined group acting unlawfully, but enforcement against unnamed represented persons requires court permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b).

Court Disposition

Injunction continued with modifications

Orders

  • Injunction restraining harassment and trespass continued against named Defendants and defined represented group, subject to modifications as indicated in the judgment.
  • Order binding on Defendants and those represented by the First Defendant, but not enforceable against unnamed persons without court permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b).