Harrods Ltd & Ors v McNally & Ors [2013] EWHC 1479 (QB) (03 June 2013)

Harrods Ltd & Ors v McNally & Ors [2013] EWHC 1479 (QB) (03 June 2013)

There has been a material change in circumstances regarding the nature and use of Hans Crescent and the scale of events, justifying amendments to the injunction to protect claimants' and public rights while preserving defendants' rights to protest. A five-year extension is appropriate, not a permanent order.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1479
Parties
Claimant: Harrods Limited; Claimant: Harrods Property Limited; Claimant: Morgan O'Grady; Defendant: Brendan McNally; Defendant: The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT); Defendant: The Unknown Members of CAFT; Defendant: Persons Who Are Protestors Against the Sale of Fur Products at Harrods Department Store
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Variation of Injunction / Post Judgment Hearing on Applications to Vary Existing Order
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Protest Regulation, Freedom of Expression, Trespass, Nuisance, Harassment
Civil Procedure Human Rights Property Law Injunctions Protest Regulation Freedom of Expression Trespass Nuisance +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrods Limited

Claimant

Harrods Property Limited

Claimant

Morgan O'Grady

Claimant

Brendan McNally

Defendant

The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT)

Defendant

The Unknown Members of CAFT

Defendant

Persons Who Are Protestors Against the Sale of Fur Products at Harrods Department Store

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Variation of Injunction / Post Judgment Hearing on Applications to Vary Existing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a change of circumstances justifying variation of the existing injunction regulating protests outside Harrods
  2. 2 Whether the order should be made permanent or extended
  3. 3 Whether restrictions on loudhailers, photography, and protest areas are justified

Ratio Decidendi

There has been a material change in circumstances regarding the nature and use of Hans Crescent and the scale of events, justifying amendments to the injunction to protect claimants' and public rights while preserving defendants' rights to protest. A five-year extension is appropriate, not a permanent order.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Draft Order A approved with amendments: revised exclusion zones for protests, loudhailer restrictions limited to exclusion zone, seven-hour period retained, minimal amendments to photography/filming restrictions allowed, order extended for five years, not made permanent, liberty to apply for further representations...