University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors

University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors

The court is satisfied that the Claimants are more likely than not to succeed at trial in establishing that unlawful harassment and criminal acts are likely to be repeated against the University, its contractors, and employees. Injunctive relief is necessary and proportionate to protect lawful business and does not significantly impinge on protesters' rights. The restrictions are justified under civil law and human rights principles.

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; 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
Application for Continuation of Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Injunction continued against specified defendants and unincorporated associations; refused against SPEAC, Oxford Animal Rights Group, People Against Cruelty to Animals – West Midlands, and West Midlands Animal Action.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Protection From Harassment, Representative Proceedings
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Injunctions Harassment Freedom of Expression Protection From Harassment Representative Proceedings

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 6 Authorities cited 13 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

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

Application for Continuation of Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunctive relief should be continued against defendants to prevent harassment and unlawful acts.
  2. 2 Whether the use of CPR 19.6 for representative proceedings is appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether the restrictions imposed infringe rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court is satisfied that the Claimants are more likely than not to succeed at trial in establishing that unlawful harassment and criminal acts are likely to be repeated against the University, its contractors, and employees. Injunctive relief is necessary and proportionate to protect lawful business and does not significantly impinge on protesters' rights. The restrictions are justified under civil law and human rights principles.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued against specified defendants and unincorporated associations; refused against SPEAC, Oxford Animal Rights Group, People Against Cruelty to Animals – West Midlands, and West Midlands Animal Action.

Orders

  • Order to be in same terms as Simon J's order of 17 September 2004, with amendments including prohibition on photography and incorporation of paragraphs 11 to 15 of draft order.
  • Exclusion zones confirmed as necessary and proportionate.