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 sufficient change in the nature and use of Hans Crescent and the scale of events to justify varying the injunction order. The order is to be amended to reflect new exclusion zones for outdoor and in-store events, with revised restrictions on loudhailers and minimal changes to photography/filming. The order is extended for five years, not made permanent, preserving the right to apply for variation or discharge.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1479 (QB)
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: 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
Civil / Application for Variation/extension of Injunction Order
Outcome
Order varied and extended for five years; not made permanent.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Protest Law, Freedom of Expression, Trespass, Nuisance, Harassment, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Article 11 ECHR
Civil Procedure Human Rights Property Law Injunctions Protest Law Freedom of Expression Trespass Nuisance +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 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

Unknown Members of CAFT

Defendant

Persons who are protestors against the sale of fur products at Harrods Department Store

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Variation/extension of Injunction Order

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

There has been a sufficient change in the nature and use of Hans Crescent and the scale of events to justify varying the injunction order. The order is to be amended to reflect new exclusion zones for outdoor and in-store events, with revised restrictions on loudhailers and minimal changes to photography/filming. The order is extended for five years, not made permanent, preserving the right to apply for variation or discharge.

Court Disposition

Order varied and extended for five years; not made permanent.

Orders

  • Draft Order A approved with specified amendments to exclusion zones, loudhailer restrictions, and duration (five years).
  • Parties to supply revised order and plans for approval.