University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors

University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors

The judge failed to consider or explain the significance of the different enforcement regimes under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 between an injunction and an undertaking. This omission vitiated his exercise of discretion, requiring the appellate court to exercise its discretion afresh. Given the public order dimension and evidence of prior breaches, an injunction was appropriate against Mr Broughton. Striking out the claim against Mr Avery was not justified as it did not impede the just disposal of proceedings and he was personally liable for his conduct.

Parties
Appellants/claimants: University of Oxford & Ors; 1st Defendant/respondent: Broughton; 12th Defendant/respondent: Greg Avery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Civil Procedure Rules, Conspiracy, Nuisance
Civil Procedure Public Order Tort Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Civil Procedure Rules Conspiracy Nuisance

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University of Oxford & Ors

Appellants/claimants

Broughton

1st Defendant/respondent

Greg Avery

12th Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Orders of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in accepting an undertaking from Mr Broughton instead of imposing an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in striking out the statement of case against Mr Avery under CPR 3.4.2(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge failed to consider or explain the significance of the different enforcement regimes under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 between an injunction and an undertaking. This omission vitiated his exercise of discretion, requiring the appellate court to exercise its discretion afresh. Given the public order dimension and evidence of prior breaches, an injunction was appropriate against Mr Broughton. Striking out the claim against Mr Avery was not justified as it did not impede the just disposal of proceedings and he was personally liable for his conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Injunction to be imposed against Mr Broughton in the same terms as against other defendants
  • Statement of case against Mr Avery reinstated; claim to proceed against him