Bayer Cropscience Ltd & Anor v Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ("SHAC") & Ors [2009] EWHC 3289 (QB) (22 December 2009)

Bayer Cropscience Ltd & Anor v Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ("SHAC") & Ors [2009] EWHC 3289 (QB) (22 December 2009)

The court held that a final injunction with the terms set out in the judgment is proportionate and necessary to protect the claimants and their employees from harassment, balancing the rights of protestors under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR with the claimants' rights under Article 8. The definitions of 'Protesters' and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3289
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 Injunction Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Final injunction granted against all defendants and defined protestors, with specified terms as set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Protection From Harassment, Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Proportionality, Animal Rights Protests
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Protection From Harassment Injunctions Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Proportionality +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 15 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 Injunction Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope and terms of final injunction against protestors for harassment
  2. 2 Definition of 'Protesters' and 'Protected Persons' under the order
  3. 3 Proportionality of restrictions on protest rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a final injunction with the terms set out in the judgment is proportionate and necessary to protect the claimants and their employees from harassment, balancing the rights of protestors under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR with the claimants' rights under Article 8. The definitions of 'Protesters' and 'Protected Persons' were set to include those reasonably believed to have harassed or threatened to harass, including ex-employees, with notice requirements. Restrictions on protest activities, exclusion zones, and use of noise amplification were justified by the history of unlawful conduct and the need to prevent further harassment. The order is indefinite but subject to...

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted against all defendants and defined protestors, with specified terms as set out in the judgment.

Orders

  • Protesters restrained from harassment of protected persons under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
  • Definitions of 'Protesters' and 'Protected Persons' set as per judgment, including ex-employees and those reasonably believed to harass with notice.