Thames Cleaning and Support Services Ltd v United Voices of the World & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 1310 (QB) (02 June 2016)

Thames Cleaning and Support Services Ltd v United Voices of the World & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 1310 (QB) (02 June 2016)

The claimant failed to show a probable risk of unlawful picketing by workers or union officials within the statutory limits, so an anti-picketing injunction was refused. However, the claimant established a probable risk that the defendants would organise or encourage mass protest or demonstration by third parties involving unlawful conduct (such as obstruction, intimidation, or harassment) outside the scope of statutory immunity. The court held that a geographically limited exclusion zone injunction, with exceptions for lawful peaceful picketing by eligible individuals, was justified and proportionate to restrain unlawful protest while preserving rights to lawful protest and assembly.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1310
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
Application for Interim Injunction / Hearing of Application to Continue Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application granted in part; anti-picketing injunction refused; exclusion zone injunction granted with exceptions for lawful picketing.
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Picketing, Injunctions, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Trade Union Rights, Tort Liability, Protest Law
Employment Law Labour Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Industrial Action Picketing Injunctions Freedom of Assembly +4 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

Application for Interim Injunction / Hearing of Application to Continue Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants threatened or intended to organise unlawful picketing or protest at 100 Wood Street
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from organising or facilitating mass picketing or protest
  3. 3 Whether the proposed conduct would fall outside statutory immunity under TULRA 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to show a probable risk of unlawful picketing by workers or union officials within the statutory limits, so an anti-picketing injunction was refused. However, the claimant established a probable risk that the defendants would organise or encourage mass protest or demonstration by third parties involving unlawful conduct (such as obstruction, intimidation, or harassment) outside the scope of statutory immunity. The court held that a geographically limited exclusion zone injunction, with exceptions for lawful peaceful picketing by eligible individuals, was justified and proportionate to restrain unlawful protest while preserving rights to lawful protest and assembly.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; anti-picketing injunction refused; exclusion zone injunction granted with exceptions for lawful picketing.

Orders

  • Refusal of anti-picketing injunction against the defendants in respect of workers and union officials.
  • Grant of an exclusion zone injunction prohibiting the defendants from organising or encouraging protest or demonstration within 10 metres of any entrance or exit to 100 Wood Street, except for up to six eligible individuals engaged in lawful peaceful picketing as defined by TULRA 1992 s 220.