RWE Npower plc & Ors v Carrol & Ors

RWE Npower plc & Ors v Carrol & Ors

The injunction should be continued as there is sufficient evidence of an ongoing threat of harassment and trespass by the Defendants and associated protestors. The scope of the injunction must be proportionate and not unduly restrict lawful protest. The First Defendant can act as a representative defendant for those acting in concert to use unlawful means, but not for all protestors. The order cannot be enforced against unnamed represented persons without further court permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b).

Parties
Claimant: RWE Npower plc; Claimant: John Patrick Rainford; Defendant: Rev. Malcolm Carrol; Defendant: David Howarth; Defendant: Mike Powell; Defendant: Christopher Ward; Defendant: Anthony Bailey; Defendant: Dr. Peter Harbour
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunction
Outcome
Injunction continued with modifications
Legal Topics
Representative Actions, Injunctions, Harassment, Trespass, Freedom of Protest
Civil Procedure Tort Law Public Order Representative Actions Injunctions Harassment Trespass Freedom of Protest

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RWE Npower plc

Claimant

John Patrick Rainford

Claimant

Rev. Malcolm Carrol

Defendant

David Howarth

Defendant

Mike Powell

Defendant

Christopher Ward

Defendant

Anthony Bailey

Defendant

Dr. Peter Harbour

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining harassment and trespass should be continued against the Defendants and represented persons
  2. 2 Whether the scope of the injunction is proportionate and compatible with lawful protest
  3. 3 Whether the First Defendant can act as a representative defendant under CPR 19.6 for the relevant groups

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction should be continued as there is sufficient evidence of an ongoing threat of harassment and trespass by the Defendants and associated protestors. The scope of the injunction must be proportionate and not unduly restrict lawful protest. The First Defendant can act as a representative defendant for those acting in concert to use unlawful means, but not for all protestors. The order cannot be enforced against unnamed represented persons without further court permission under CPR 19.6(4)(b).

Court Disposition

Injunction continued with modifications

Orders

  • The injunction restraining harassment and trespass is continued against the named Defendants and those represented by the First Defendant, subject to modifications as set out in the judgment.
  • The order is binding on the Defendants and those represented by the First Defendant but is not to be enforced against a person who is not a party to the claim without permission of the Court pursuant to CPR 19.6(4)(b).