MBR Acres Ltd & Ors v Free The MBR Beagles & Ors [2022] EWHC 3338 (KB) (22 December 2022)

MBR Acres Ltd & Ors v Free The MBR Beagles & Ors [2022] EWHC 3338 (KB) (22 December 2022)

The Court refused to grant the majority of the further restrictions sought by the Claimants, finding that the evidence did not justify the breadth of the proposed variations to the interim injunction, particularly in relation to suppliers and contractors. The Court held that the evidence was insufficiently focused, often vague, and failed to identify specific wrongdoers or actionable wrongs. The Court emphasised that interim injunctions must be targeted, proportionate, and supported by clear evidence. The Court also found that service on 'Persons Unknown' was not effective for those not protesting at the Wyton Site, and that the proposed definitions were overbroad. The application to add...

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3338 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: MBR Acres Limited; Claimant: Demetris Markou; Claimant: B & K Universal Limited; Claimant: Susan Pressick; Defendant: Free the MBR Beagles; Defendant: Camp Beagle; Defendant: Mel Broughton; Defendant: Ronan Falsey; Defendant: Bethany Mayflower; Defendant: Scott Paterson; Defendant: Helen Durant; Defendant: Bernadette Green; Defendant: Sam Morley; Defendant: Persons Unknown (various categories); Defendant: John Curtin; Defendant: Michael Maher; Defendant: Sammi Laidlaw; Defendant: Pauline Hodson; Defendant: Lou Marley; Defendant: Lucy Windler; Defendant: Lisa Jaffray; Defendant: Joanne Shaw; Defendant: Amanda James; Defendant: Victoria Asplin; Defendant: Amandeep Singh; Defendant: Person Unknown 70; Defendant: Person Unknown 74; Interested Party: Gillian McGivern (interested party)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Interim Injunction (variation Application) / Interim Application to Vary Injunction; Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application to vary interim injunction largely refused; limited modifications previously made on 2 August 2022 remain in force; application to add Gillian McGivern as defendant refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Harassment, Alternative Service, Protest Law, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Service on Persons Unknown
Civil Procedure Tort Human Rights Interim Injunctions Harassment Alternative Service Protest Law Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MBR Acres Limited

Claimant

Demetris Markou

Claimant

B & K Universal Limited

Claimant

Susan Pressick

Claimant

Free the MBR Beagles

Defendant

Camp Beagle

Defendant

Mel Broughton

Defendant

Ronan Falsey

Defendant

Bethany Mayflower

Defendant

Scott Paterson

Defendant

Helen Durant

Defendant

Bernadette Green

Defendant

Sam Morley

Defendant

Persons Unknown (various categories)

Defendant

John Curtin

Defendant

Michael Maher

Defendant

Sammi Laidlaw

Defendant

Pauline Hodson

Defendant

Lou Marley

Defendant

Lucy Windler

Defendant

Lisa Jaffray

Defendant

Joanne Shaw

Defendant

Amanda James

Defendant

Victoria Asplin

Defendant

Amandeep Singh

Defendant

Person Unknown 70

Defendant

Person Unknown 74

Defendant

Gillian McGivern (interested party)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Interim Injunction (variation Application) / Interim Application to Vary Injunction; Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant further variations to the interim injunction against protestors, including restrictions relating to harassment of suppliers and employees; Whether the evidence supports the extension of the injunction to cover additional acts and persons; Whether service on 'Persons Unknown' is effective for the proposed variations; Whether Gillian McGivern has become a defendant to the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to grant the majority of the further restrictions sought by the Claimants, finding that the evidence did not justify the breadth of the proposed variations to the interim injunction, particularly in relation to suppliers and contractors. The Court held that the evidence was insufficiently focused, often vague, and failed to identify specific wrongdoers or actionable wrongs. The Court emphasised that interim injunctions must be targeted, proportionate, and supported by clear evidence. The Court also found that service on 'Persons Unknown' was not effective for those not protesting at the Wyton Site, and that the proposed definitions were overbroad. The application to add...

Court Disposition

Application to vary interim injunction largely refused; limited modifications previously made on 2 August 2022 remain in force; application to add Gillian McGivern as defendant refused.

Orders

  • Majority of further restrictions sought by Claimants refused.
  • Existing interim injunction as varied on 2 August 2022 remains in force.