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 established a probable risk that the defendants would organise or encourage unlawful mass protest or demonstration at 100 Wood Street, involving third parties and conduct exceeding lawful limits of protest and picketing. While the evidence did not justify an anti-picketing injunction against workers or union officials within statutory immunity, it did justify an exclusion zone injunction restraining the defendants from organising or encouraging unlawful protest within 10 metres of any entrance or exit, subject to exceptions for lawful picketing by qualifying individuals. The order is proportionate and necessary to prevent unlawful conduct without unduly infringing rights to...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1310 (QB)
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
Interlocutory Injunction Application / Hearing for Continuation of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted in modified form
Legal Topics
Industrial Action, Picketing, Injunctions, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Trade Union Rights, Tortious 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 9 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

Interlocutory Injunction Application / 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 unlawful protest or picketing
  3. 3 Whether the proposed conduct is protected by statutory immunity under TULRA or by Articles 10 and 11 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant established a probable risk that the defendants would organise or encourage unlawful mass protest or demonstration at 100 Wood Street, involving third parties and conduct exceeding lawful limits of protest and picketing. While the evidence did not justify an anti-picketing injunction against workers or union officials within statutory immunity, it did justify an exclusion zone injunction restraining the defendants from organising or encouraging unlawful protest within 10 metres of any entrance or exit, subject to exceptions for lawful picketing by qualifying individuals. The order is proportionate and necessary to prevent unlawful conduct without unduly infringing rights to...

Court Disposition

Injunction granted in modified form

Orders

  • Refusal of anti-picketing injunction against workers and union officials within statutory immunity
  • Grant of 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 lawful picketing by up to six qualifying individuals at any entrance or exit