Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors v Avery & Ors (Representing Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ("Shac") [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB) (26 June 2009)

Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors v Avery & Ors (Representing Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ("Shac") [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB) (26 June 2009)

The court held that the claimants are entitled to a final injunction restraining trespass and harassment by animal rights activists acting in the names of SHAC and ALF. The ALF and SHAC, though lacking formal legal personality, are sufficiently organised and have a common interest to justify representative orders under CPR 19.6. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as amended, permits corporate claimants to seek injunctions to protect employees and others. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The named defendants are appropriate representatives for the groups in question, and the terms of the injunction are justified by the evidence of ongoing and serious harassment.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1488 (QB)
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: SmithKline & French Laboratories Limited; Claimant: Dealcyber Limited; Claimant: Glaxo Finance Bermuda Limited; Claimant: Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited; Claimant: William Frederick Trundley (for and on behalf of the Protected Persons); Defendant: Greg Avery (representing SHAC); Defendant: Robin Webb (representing ALF); Defendant: Max Gastone (representing SHAC)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Injunction granted
Legal Topics
Harassment, Trespass, Representative Actions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Civil Procedure Rules 19.6, Unincorporated Associations, Animal Rights Activism
Civil Procedure Tort Injunctions Harassment Trespass Representative Actions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Civil Procedure Rules 19.6 +2 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 22 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

SmithKline & French Laboratories Limited

Claimant

Dealcyber Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Finance Bermuda Limited

Claimant

Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited

Claimant

William Frederick Trundley (for and on behalf of the Protected Persons)

Claimant

Greg Avery (representing SHAC)

Defendant

Robin Webb (representing ALF)

Defendant

Max Gastone (representing SHAC)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants are entitled to a final injunction restraining trespass and harassment by animal rights activists
  2. 2 Whether the ALF and SHAC can be subject to representative orders under CPR 19.6
  3. 3 Whether corporate claimants can claim relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to protect employees and others

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimants are entitled to a final injunction restraining trespass and harassment by animal rights activists acting in the names of SHAC and ALF. The ALF and SHAC, though lacking formal legal personality, are sufficiently organised and have a common interest to justify representative orders under CPR 19.6. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as amended, permits corporate claimants to seek injunctions to protect employees and others. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The named defendants are appropriate representatives for the groups in question, and the terms of the injunction are justified by the evidence of ongoing and serious harassment.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted

Orders

  • Final injunction restraining trespass and harassment by animal rights activists acting in the names of SHAC and ALF, with defined demonstration areas and exclusion zones.
  • Representative orders made under CPR 19.6 against persons acting in the names of SHAC and ALF, with named representatives.