Teledyne UK Ltd v Ensell & Anor [2025] EWHC 2164 (KB) (18 August 2025)

Teledyne UK Ltd v Ensell & Anor [2025] EWHC 2164 (KB) (18 August 2025)

The defendants did not have actual knowledge of the injunction order until informed by security staff at 7am on 28 January 2025, after the protest had commenced. Their culpability was limited to the period after this knowledge. The harm caused was minor and the protest was peaceful. Both defendants admitted the breaches, expressed genuine remorse, and had strong personal mitigation. The custody threshold was marginally passed due to the duration of the breach after knowledge, but the sentence was suspended due to mitigation and the protester bargain.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2164 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Teledyne UK Limited; Defendant: Mary Ensell; Defendant: Harry Wade
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Sanctions Hearing Following Admitted Breaches
Outcome
21 days imprisonment suspended for 12 months for each defendant
Legal Topics
Protest Injunctions, Sanctions for Contempt, Burden and Standard of Proof in Contempt, Civil Disobedience, Suspended Sentences
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Protest Injunctions Sanctions for Contempt Burden and Standard of Proof in Contempt Civil Disobedience Suspended Sentences

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teledyne UK Limited

Claimant

Mary Ensell

Defendant

Harry Wade

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Sanctions Hearing Following Admitted Breaches

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants had actual knowledge of the injunction order at the time of breach
  2. 2 Appropriate sanction for admitted breaches of a protest injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not have actual knowledge of the injunction order until informed by security staff at 7am on 28 January 2025, after the protest had commenced. Their culpability was limited to the period after this knowledge. The harm caused was minor and the protest was peaceful. Both defendants admitted the breaches, expressed genuine remorse, and had strong personal mitigation. The custody threshold was marginally passed due to the duration of the breach after knowledge, but the sentence was suspended due to mitigation and the protester bargain.

Court Disposition

21 days imprisonment suspended for 12 months for each defendant

Orders

  • Each defendant sentenced to 21 days imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, conditional on not breaching specified paragraphs of the injunction order.
  • No order for costs or financial loss against the defendants.