University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors [2004] EWHC 2543 (QB) (10 November 2004)

University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors [2004] EWHC 2543 (QB) (10 November 2004)

The court found that the claimants are more likely than not to succeed at trial in establishing that unlawful harassment and tortious acts are likely to be directed at the claimants and associated persons by the defendants and their associates. The continuation of the injunction is necessary and proportionate to protect lawful activities and does not unduly infringe the defendants' Convention rights. The use of CPR 19.6 for representative proceedings is appropriate in these circumstances.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2543 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford; Claimant: David Robert Holmes; Claimant: Jennifer Gregory; Claimant: Oxford University Fixed Assets Ltd (OUFAL); Defendant: Mel Broughton; Defendant: John Curtin; Defendant: Robert Cogswell; Defendant: SPEAK Campaigns; Defendant: Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge (SPEAC); Defendant: STOP HUNTINGDON ANIMAL CRUELTY (SHAC); Defendant: Oxford Animal Rights Group; Defendant: People Against Cruelty to Animals – West Midlands; Defendant: West Midlands Animal Action; Defendant: Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunctive Relief / Hearing for Continuation of Interim Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction continued against specified defendants and associated persons pending trial; application against SPEAC (5th Defendant) refused; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Representative Actions, Protest Law
Civil Procedure Tort Human Rights Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Freedom of Expression Representative Actions Protest Law

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford

Claimant

David Robert Holmes

Claimant

Jennifer Gregory

Claimant

Oxford University Fixed Assets Ltd (OUFAL)

Claimant

Mel Broughton

Defendant

John Curtin

Defendant

Robert Cogswell

Defendant

SPEAK Campaigns

Defendant

Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge (SPEAC)

Defendant

STOP HUNTINGDON ANIMAL CRUELTY (SHAC)

Defendant

Oxford Animal Rights Group

Defendant

People Against Cruelty to Animals – West Midlands

Defendant

West Midlands Animal Action

Defendant

Animal Liberation Front (ALF)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunctive Relief / Hearing for Continuation of Interim Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be continued against the defendants to prevent harassment and unlawful acts targeting the claimants and associated persons.
  2. 2 Whether the use of CPR 19.6 for representative actions is appropriate in these circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the terms of the injunction are proportionate and compatible with Convention rights, including Articles 6, 8, 10, and 11 ECHR.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimants are more likely than not to succeed at trial in establishing that unlawful harassment and tortious acts are likely to be directed at the claimants and associated persons by the defendants and their associates. The continuation of the injunction is necessary and proportionate to protect lawful activities and does not unduly infringe the defendants' Convention rights. The use of CPR 19.6 for representative proceedings is appropriate in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued against specified defendants and associated persons pending trial; application against SPEAC (5th Defendant) refused; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Interim injunction continued in the same terms as the order of Simon J of 17 September 2004, with amendments to include paragraphs 11 to 15 and 2(a) (prohibition on photography), and renumbering as necessary.
  • Application to continue injunction against SPEAC (5th Defendant) refused.