Edo Technology Ltd ("Edo") & Anor v Campaign To Smash Edo & Ors [2006] EWHC 598 (QB) (23 March 2006)

Edo Technology Ltd ("Edo") & Anor v Campaign To Smash Edo & Ors [2006] EWHC 598 (QB) (23 March 2006)

Permission to amend the particulars of claim is granted, subject to tidying up and removal of references to criminal charges where acquittals have occurred or charges are pending, as the amendments do not cause irremediable prejudice and can be managed at trial. The claimants' procedural failings do not amount to abuse of process justifying striking out or loss of interim injunction, but are serious and relevant to costs.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 598
Parties
Claimant: EDO Technology Limited; Claimant: Paul Hills (in substitution for David Anthony Jones), Managing Director of EDO (for and on behalf of the employees of EDO); Defendant: Campaign to Smash EDO; Defendant: Mathew Axworthy; Defendant: Simon Levin; Defendant: Christopher Osmond; Defendant: Anthony Parker; Defendant: Cynthia Schwartz; Defendant: Elizabeth Welch; Defendant: Penny Steel; Defendant: Lorna Marcham; Defendant: Tom Daly; Defendant: Jaya Nyanajoti; Defendant: Thomas Gittoes; Defendant: James Fenn; Defendant: Paul Fenn; Defendant: Richard Hollis; Defendant: Ceri Gibbons
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Abuse of Process Application
Outcome
Permission to amend granted; abuse of process application dismissed; interim injunction continues (with modifications).
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Amendment of Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Freedom of Expression, Trespass, Nuisance, Public Order
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Harassment Interim Injunctions Amendment of Pleadings Abuse of Process Freedom of Expression +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EDO Technology Limited

Claimant

Paul Hills (in substitution for David Anthony Jones), Managing Director of EDO (for and on behalf of the employees of EDO)

Claimant

Campaign to Smash EDO

Defendant

Mathew Axworthy

Defendant

Simon Levin

Defendant

Christopher Osmond

Defendant

Anthony Parker

Defendant

Cynthia Schwartz

Defendant

Elizabeth Welch

Defendant

Penny Steel

Defendant

Lorna Marcham

Defendant

Tom Daly

Defendant

Jaya Nyanajoti

Defendant

Thomas Gittoes

Defendant

James Fenn

Defendant

Paul Fenn

Defendant

Richard Hollis

Defendant

Ceri Gibbons

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Particulars of Claim and Abuse of Process Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should be permitted to amend particulars of claim to add new causes of action (tort claims) and factual allegations
  2. 2 Whether claimants' conduct amounts to abuse of process justifying striking out or loss of interim injunction
  3. 3 Whether interim injunction should continue against remaining defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the particulars of claim is granted, subject to tidying up and removal of references to criminal charges where acquittals have occurred or charges are pending, as the amendments do not cause irremediable prejudice and can be managed at trial. The claimants' procedural failings do not amount to abuse of process justifying striking out or loss of interim injunction, but are serious and relevant to costs.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend granted; abuse of process application dismissed; interim injunction continues (with modifications).

Orders

  • Claimants granted permission to amend particulars of claim (subject to revisions and removal of certain references).
  • Abuse of process application by 5th defendant dismissed.