Arla Foods Ltd & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 1952 (Ch) (26 July 2024)

Arla Foods Ltd & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors [2024] EWHC 1952 (Ch) (26 July 2024)

The court granted the final injunction against persons unknown and the remaining identified defendant, finding a compelling need for protection of the claimants' civil rights, grave and irreparable harm from protest actions, and that Articles 10 and 11 ECHR do not justify trespass or unreasonable obstruction. The proportionality test was satisfied by the restrictions imposed, and procedural safeguards were in place. Injunctions were constrained by territorial and temporal limits and were just and convenient in the circumstances.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1952 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Arla Foods Limited; Claimant: Arla Foods Hatfield Limited; Defendant: Persons Unknown (six categories as described in the judgment); Defendant: 34 Named Defendants (listed at Schedule 1 of the Injunction Order)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim for Injunction / Final Hearing and Disposal of Claim
Outcome
Final injunction granted against persons unknown and remaining identified defendant; consent orders made for named defendants who gave undertakings.
Legal Topics
Precautionary Injunctions, Trespass to Land, Public Nuisance, Obstruction of Highway, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Protest Law, Persons Unknown Injunctions
Civil Procedure Property Law Human Rights Law Tort Law Precautionary Injunctions Trespass to Land Public Nuisance Obstruction of Highway +4 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arla Foods Limited

Claimant

Arla Foods Hatfield Limited

Claimant

Persons Unknown (six categories as described in the judgment)

Defendant

34 Named Defendants (listed at Schedule 1 of the Injunction Order)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim for Injunction / Final Hearing and Disposal of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted against persons unknown and identified defendants to restrain protest actions at the claimants' sites
  2. 2 Whether Articles 10 and 11 ECHR provide a defence to trespass or obstruction of highway
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality test under the Human Rights Act applies to the restrictions sought

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the final injunction against persons unknown and the remaining identified defendant, finding a compelling need for protection of the claimants' civil rights, grave and irreparable harm from protest actions, and that Articles 10 and 11 ECHR do not justify trespass or unreasonable obstruction. The proportionality test was satisfied by the restrictions imposed, and procedural safeguards were in place. Injunctions were constrained by territorial and temporal limits and were just and convenient in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted against persons unknown and remaining identified defendant; consent orders made for named defendants who gave undertakings.

Orders

  • Persons unknown and remaining identified defendant restrained from trespassing, obstructing vehicular access, affixing themselves to vehicles, or interfering with traffic at the claimants' sites for five years, subject to annual review.
  • Consent orders staying proceedings against named defendants who gave undertakings.