Astellas Pharma Ltd & Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 752 (29 June 2011)

Astellas Pharma Ltd & Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 752 (29 June 2011)

The Court of Appeal held that it was not appropriate or just to permit enforcement of the injunction against unidentified protestors without considering their individual circumstances. The court declined to rule that all persons bound by a representative order are 'defendants' for the purposes of criminal liability under section 3(6) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The appeal was dismissed as the judge below had properly exercised his discretion in refusing the additional enforcement order sought by the appellants.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 752
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Astellas Pharma Ltd and others; Defendants/respondents: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Summary Judgment and Injunctive Relief Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, Enforcement of Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Joinder of Parties, Orders Against Persons Unknown
Civil Procedure Injunctions Criminal Law Representative Proceedings Enforcement of Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Joinder of Parties Orders Against Persons Unknown

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Astellas Pharma Ltd and others

Claimants/appellants

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Summary Judgment and Injunctive Relief Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should permit enforcement of an injunction against unidentified protestors under CPR 19.6(4)(b)
  2. 2 Whether persons bound by a representative order are 'defendants' for the purposes of criminal liability under section 3(6) Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether the court can or should make orders enforceable against persons unknown

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it was not appropriate or just to permit enforcement of the injunction against unidentified protestors without considering their individual circumstances. The court declined to rule that all persons bound by a representative order are 'defendants' for the purposes of criminal liability under section 3(6) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The appeal was dismissed as the judge below had properly exercised his discretion in refusing the additional enforcement order sought by the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed