Bayer Cropscience Ltd & Anor v Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ("SHAC") & Ors

Bayer Cropscience Ltd & Anor v Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ("SHAC") & Ors

Given the established liability for harassment and associated criminal conduct by SHAC and its members, and the need to protect the Claimants and their employees (including former employees) from further harassment, the Court finds it proportionate and reasonable to impose the final injunctions as set out, including definitions of Protesters and Protected Persons, restrictions on protest activities, and mechanisms for variation. The order balances the rights under Articles 8, 10, and 11 ECHR, ensuring both protection from harassment and the ability to protest lawfully within defined limits.

Parties
Claimant: Bayer CropScience Limited; Claimant: Martin Dawkins; Defendant: Stop Huntingdon Cruelty (SHAC); Defendant: Greg Avery; Defendant: Natasha Avery; Defendant: Heather Nicholson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment Following Summary Judgment on Liability and Hearing on Scope of Final Injunctions
Outcome
Final injunction granted with specified terms
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Proportionality, Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Injunctions Harassment Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Proportionality +1 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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bayer CropScience Limited

Claimant

Martin Dawkins

Claimant

Stop Huntingdon Cruelty (SHAC)

Defendant

Greg Avery

Defendant

Natasha Avery

Defendant

Heather Nicholson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment Following Summary Judgment on Liability and Hearing on Scope of Final Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope and terms of final injunctions against SHAC and associated individuals for harassment and related unlawful conduct
  2. 2 Definition of 'Protesters' and 'Protected Persons' for purposes of injunction
  3. 3 Proportionality of restrictions on protest under Articles 8, 10, and 11 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Given the established liability for harassment and associated criminal conduct by SHAC and its members, and the need to protect the Claimants and their employees (including former employees) from further harassment, the Court finds it proportionate and reasonable to impose the final injunctions as set out, including definitions of Protesters and Protected Persons, restrictions on protest activities, and mechanisms for variation. The order balances the rights under Articles 8, 10, and 11 ECHR, ensuring both protection from harassment and the ability to protest lawfully within defined limits.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted with specified terms

Orders

  • Defendants and defined Protesters restrained from harassment of Protected Persons under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  • Protesters restrained from specified conduct including abusive communications, photographing, and incitement