EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign To Smash EDO & Ors [2005] EWHC 837 (QB) (29 April 2005)

EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign To Smash EDO & Ors [2005] EWHC 837 (QB) (29 April 2005)

EDO MBM Technology Ltd, as a company, cannot claim relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Mr. Jones is entitled to a representation order under CPR 19.6 to represent employees, sub-contractors, and security personnel. Smash EDO and BOOB, as unincorporated associations without representative individuals before the court, cannot be sued and are struck out as defendants. The evidence supports the grant of an interim injunction against the individual defendants (except those who have given undertakings), as there is a real risk of future harassment. The terms of the injunction are justified and proportionate, balancing the rights to protest with the rights of employees not to...

Citation
[2005] EWHC 837 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: EDO MBM Technology Ltd; Defendant: Campaign to Smash EDO & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction and Strike Out Applications / Interim Application Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; claims against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out; representation order granted to Mr. Jones; EDO remains as a party but cannot claim relief under the Act.
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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EDO MBM Technology Ltd

Claimant

Campaign to Smash EDO & Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction and Strike Out Applications / Interim Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against protestors targeting EDO MBM Technology Ltd and its staff
  2. 2 Whether EDO MBM Technology Ltd, as a company, can claim relief under the Act
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Jones can represent employees, sub-contractors, and security personnel under CPR 19.6

Ratio Decidendi

EDO MBM Technology Ltd, as a company, cannot claim relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Mr. Jones is entitled to a representation order under CPR 19.6 to represent employees, sub-contractors, and security personnel. Smash EDO and BOOB, as unincorporated associations without representative individuals before the court, cannot be sued and are struck out as defendants. The evidence supports the grant of an interim injunction against the individual defendants (except those who have given undertakings), as there is a real risk of future harassment. The terms of the injunction are justified and proportionate, balancing the rights to protest with the rights of employees not to...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; claims against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out; representation order granted to Mr. Jones; EDO remains as a party but cannot claim relief under the Act.

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining harassment of protected persons under specified terms.
  • Proceedings against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out, with liberty to apply if representative individuals are identified.