EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign To Smash EDO & Ors

EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign To Smash EDO & Ors

Interim injunctive relief is justified and proportionate against the 3rd–5th and 7th–12th Defendants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, given evidence of a concerted campaign involving criminal offences and harassment, and a real risk of future harassment. The claim against Smash EDO and BOOB is struck out as they are not suable entities without representative individuals. Mr. Jones is entitled to a representation order under CPR 19.6. The terms of the injunction are limited to what is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of the claimants without unduly infringing the defendants' rights to protest.

Parties
Claimant: EDO MBM Technology Ltd; Defendant: Campaign to Smash EDO; Defendant: 3rd, 4th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th Defendants; Defendant: 12th Defendant; Defendant: 6th Defendant (Mr. Osmond)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Application for Injunction and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; claims against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out; strike out applications by 3rd–5th and 7th–12th Defendants refused; interim relief refused against 14th–16th Defendants.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Representative Actions, Unincorporated Associations
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Interim Injunctions Harassment Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Representative Actions +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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EDO MBM Technology Ltd

Claimant

Campaign to Smash EDO

Defendant

3rd, 4th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th Defendants

Defendant

12th Defendant

Defendant

6th Defendant (Mr. Osmond)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Application for Injunction and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against protestors
  2. 2 Whether the claim is properly brought against unincorporated associations (Smash EDO and BOOB)
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Jones can represent employees, sub-contractors, and security personnel under CPR 19.6

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunctive relief is justified and proportionate against the 3rd–5th and 7th–12th Defendants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, given evidence of a concerted campaign involving criminal offences and harassment, and a real risk of future harassment. The claim against Smash EDO and BOOB is struck out as they are not suable entities without representative individuals. Mr. Jones is entitled to a representation order under CPR 19.6. The terms of the injunction are limited to what is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of the claimants without unduly infringing the defendants' rights to protest.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; claims against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out; strike out applications by 3rd–5th and 7th–12th Defendants refused; interim relief refused against 14th–16th Defendants.

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted against 3rd–5th and 7th–12th Defendants restraining harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, with specified terms and exclusion zones.
  • Claims against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out, without prejudice to fresh proceedings if representatives are identified.