Thames Cleaning and Support Services Ltd v United Voices of the World & Anor (Rev 1)

Thames Cleaning and Support Services Ltd v United Voices of the World & Anor (Rev 1)

The evidence established a real risk that the defendants would organise or encourage mass protest or demonstration by third parties at or near 100 Wood Street, likely to result in unlawful conduct such as obstruction, harassment, or intimidation, for which no statutory immunity applies. However, the claimant was not entitled to an anti-picketing injunction against lawful picketing by workers or union officials. The appropriate remedy was a geographically limited exclusion zone injunction restraining the defendants from organising or encouraging unlawful protest within 10 metres of any entrance or exit, with exceptions for lawful picketing by qualifying individuals.

Parties
Claimant: Thames Cleaning and Support Services Limited; First Defendant: United Voices of the World; Second Defendant: Petros Elia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing for Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted in modified form
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Picketing, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Injunctions, Trade Union Law
Labour Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Industrial Action Picketing Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Injunctions +1 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thames Cleaning and Support Services Limited

Claimant

United Voices of the World

First Defendant

Petros Elia

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Interlocutory Hearing for Continuation of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants threatened or intended to organise unlawful mass picketing or protest at 100 Wood Street
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from organising or facilitating such activities
  3. 3 Whether the proposed injunction would unlawfully restrict rights to protest and freedom of assembly

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established a real risk that the defendants would organise or encourage mass protest or demonstration by third parties at or near 100 Wood Street, likely to result in unlawful conduct such as obstruction, harassment, or intimidation, for which no statutory immunity applies. However, the claimant was not entitled to an anti-picketing injunction against lawful picketing by workers or union officials. The appropriate remedy was a geographically limited exclusion zone injunction restraining the defendants from organising or encouraging unlawful protest within 10 metres of any entrance or exit, with exceptions for lawful picketing by qualifying individuals.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted in modified form

Orders

  • Claimant's application for an anti-picketing injunction refused
  • Injunction granted restraining the defendants from organising or encouraging protest or demonstration within 10 metres of any entrance or exit to 100 Wood Street, except for lawful picketing by up to six qualifying individuals at any entrance or exit