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 there is ample evidence that unlawful means, including harassment and criminal acts, are likely to be used against the claimants and those associated with the construction of the research laboratory. The continuation of the injunction is necessary and proportionate to protect lawful activities, and the use of representative proceedings is justified. The terms of the order, including exclusion zones and prohibition on photography, are appropriate and do not unduly infringe the defendants' rights.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2543
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 groups, with modifications to the terms of the order.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Representative Actions, Proportionality of Relief
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Freedom of Expression Representative Actions Proportionality of Relief

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 University of Oxford, its employees, contractors, and suppliers.
  2. 2 Whether the use of representative actions under CPR 19.6 is appropriate in these circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the terms of the injunction are proportionate and compatible with the defendants' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there is ample evidence that unlawful means, including harassment and criminal acts, are likely to be used against the claimants and those associated with the construction of the research laboratory. The continuation of the injunction is necessary and proportionate to protect lawful activities, and the use of representative proceedings is justified. The terms of the order, including exclusion zones and prohibition on photography, are appropriate and do not unduly infringe the defendants' rights.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued against specified defendants and groups, with modifications to the terms of the order.

Orders

  • Order to be in the same terms as the Order of Simon J of 17 September 2004, with incorporation of paragraphs 11 to 15 of the proposed draft order and prohibition on photography.
  • Injunction refused against the fifth defendant (SPEAC) and the seventh, eighth, and ninth defendants.