Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors v Avery & Ors

Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors v Avery & Ors

The Claimants have adduced sufficient evidence of a serious threat of harassment to justify continuation of the injunction against both ALF and SHAC. Enforcement against unnamed persons represented in the claim requires individual court permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b; blanket permission in advance is not permitted.

Parties
Claimant: SmithKline Beecham PLC; Claimant: Beecham Group PLC; Claimant: The Wellcome Foundation Limited; Claimant: Glaxo Operations UK Limited; Claimant: Glaxo Group Limited; Claimant: GlaxoSmithKline Research & Development Limited; Claimant: Glaxo Properties Limited; Claimant: Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited; Claimant: Dealcyber Limited; Claimant: Glaxo Finance Bermuda Limited; Claimant: Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited; Claimant: William Frederick Trundley; Defendant: Greg Avery; Defendant: Robin Webb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunction
Outcome
Injunction continued against both ALF and SHAC; request for blanket enforcement under CPR 19.6(4)(b) denied.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Injunctions, Representative Proceedings, Freedom of Expression, Protest Rights
Civil Procedure Human Rights Criminal Law Harassment Injunctions Representative Proceedings Freedom of Expression Protest Rights

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Claimant

Beecham Group PLC

Claimant

The Wellcome Foundation Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Operations UK Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Group Limited

Claimant

GlaxoSmithKline Research & Development Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Properties Limited

Claimant

Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited

Claimant

Dealcyber Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Finance Bermuda Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited

Claimant

William Frederick Trundley

Claimant

Greg Avery

Defendant

Robin Webb

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient evidence exists to justify continuation of injunction restraining harassment by protestors
  2. 2 Whether CPR 19.6(4)(b) permits enforcement of injunction against unnamed persons represented in the claim
  3. 3 Appropriateness of terms for peaceful protest within exclusion zones

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants have adduced sufficient evidence of a serious threat of harassment to justify continuation of the injunction against both ALF and SHAC. Enforcement against unnamed persons represented in the claim requires individual court permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b; blanket permission in advance is not permitted.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued against both ALF and SHAC; request for blanket enforcement under CPR 19.6(4)(b) denied.

Orders

  • Injunction continued in form of draft order with paragraph 19 deleted.
  • Witness statements of Greg Avery and Natasha Avery to be added to Schedule A.