Fitzwilliam Land Company & Ors v Cheesman & Ors [2018] EWHC 3139 (QB) (16 November 2018)

Fitzwilliam Land Company & Ors v Cheesman & Ors [2018] EWHC 3139 (QB) (16 November 2018)

The court found that it is more likely than not that certain named defendants and persons unknown have trespassed and will continue to trespass on the claimants' land, and that there is a real and imminent risk of further trespass. The balance of convenience, even considering persuasive arguments about the illegality of hunting and the defendants' Convention rights, weighs heavily in favour of granting an interim injunction to restrain trespass to land. Damages are not an adequate remedy. The injunction is limited to trespass to land and does not extend to animals or goods at this stage.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3139 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Fitzwilliam Land Company; Claimant: Milton (Peterborough) Estates Company; Claimant: Sir Philip Vyvian Naylor-Leyland Bt; Claimant: Highwoods Farms Limited; Defendant: Gareth Cheesman; Defendant: Lisa Jackson; Defendant: Paul Benton; Defendant: Steven Milton; Defendant: Phil Garrard; Defendant: Phil Joseph Walters; Defendant: Paula Lamont; Defendant: David Blenkinsopp; Defendant: Matthew Spencer; Defendant: Clive Richardson; Defendant: Mickey Bryce; Defendant: Ruth Nicholls; Defendant: Jennifer Alfreton; Defendant: Emily Hepburn; Defendant: Persons Unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the Claimant(s) on the land identified in the Second Schedule to the brief details of claim and not subject to public rights of way with a view to protesting against the Fitzwilliam (Milton) Hunt or otherwise obstructing the Hunt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Interim Relief (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Quia Timet Injunctions, Protest Law, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Hunting Act 2004, Balance of Convenience, Necessity Defence, Persons Unknown Injunctions
Civil Procedure Property Law Human Rights Trespass to Land Quia Timet Injunctions Protest Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fitzwilliam Land Company

Claimant

Milton (Peterborough) Estates Company

Claimant

Sir Philip Vyvian Naylor-Leyland Bt

Claimant

Highwoods Farms Limited

Claimant

Gareth Cheesman

Defendant

Lisa Jackson

Defendant

Paul Benton

Defendant

Steven Milton

Defendant

Phil Garrard

Defendant

Phil Joseph Walters

Defendant

Paula Lamont

Defendant

David Blenkinsopp

Defendant

Matthew Spencer

Defendant

Clive Richardson

Defendant

Mickey Bryce

Defendant

Ruth Nicholls

Defendant

Jennifer Alfreton

Defendant

Emily Hepburn

Defendant

Persons Unknown entering or remaining without the consent of the Claimant(s) on the land identified in the Second Schedule to the brief details of claim and not subject to public rights of way with a view to protesting against the Fitzwilliam (Milton) Hunt or otherwise obstructing the Hunt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Interim Relief (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain trespass to land by named defendants and persons unknown protesting against the Hunt
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an injunction given competing property and human rights
  3. 3 Whether allegations of illegality of hunting activities affect entitlement to injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it is more likely than not that certain named defendants and persons unknown have trespassed and will continue to trespass on the claimants' land, and that there is a real and imminent risk of further trespass. The balance of convenience, even considering persuasive arguments about the illegality of hunting and the defendants' Convention rights, weighs heavily in favour of granting an interim injunction to restrain trespass to land. Damages are not an adequate remedy. The injunction is limited to trespass to land and does not extend to animals or goods at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining named defendants (D1, D2, D4, D6, D7, D11, D14) and persons unknown from trespassing on claimants' land pending trial, subject to public rights of way.
  • No interim injunction granted in respect of trespass to animals or goods.