MINUTE OF TRANSOCEAN DRILLING UK LTD AGAINST GREENPEACE LTD AND ANOTHER [2020] ScotCS CSOH_66 (03 July 2020)

MINUTE OF TRANSOCEAN DRILLING UK LTD AGAINST GREENPEACE LTD AND ANOTHER [2020] ScotCS CSOH_66 (03 July 2020)

Greenpeace Limited, as a corporate entity, is liable for contempt of court for breach of the interdict by the actions of its activists and associated persons. The admitted conduct, public claims of responsibility, and orchestration of the protest establish the requisite mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. The breaches were deliberate, not accidental or inadvertent, and the Convention rights engaged do not excuse or justify the contempt. The appropriate sanction must be proportionate, taking into account the corporate nature of the respondent, the context of civil disobedience, and the need to uphold the authority of the court.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_66
Parties
Pursuer/minuter: Transocean Drilling UK Limited; First Defender: Greenpeace Limited; Second Defender: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Minute for Breach of Interdict (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Liability and Sanction for Contempt
Outcome
Greenpeace Limited found in contempt of court for breach of interdict.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interdicts/injunctions, Direct Action Protest, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Corporate Liability, Sanctions for Breach of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Environmental Law Human Rights Contempt of Court Interdicts/injunctions Direct Action Protest Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transocean Drilling UK Limited

Pursuer/minuter

Greenpeace Limited

First Defender

Persons Unknown

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Minute for Breach of Interdict (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Liability and Sanction for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Greenpeace Limited is liable for contempt of court for breach of interdict by actions of its activists and associated persons
  2. 2 Whether the requisite mens rea for contempt can be inferred from Greenpeace's conduct and admissions
  3. 3 Whether the admitted conduct constitutes contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Greenpeace Limited, as a corporate entity, is liable for contempt of court for breach of the interdict by the actions of its activists and associated persons. The admitted conduct, public claims of responsibility, and orchestration of the protest establish the requisite mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. The breaches were deliberate, not accidental or inadvertent, and the Convention rights engaged do not excuse or justify the contempt. The appropriate sanction must be proportionate, taking into account the corporate nature of the respondent, the context of civil disobedience, and the need to uphold the authority of the court.

Court Disposition

Greenpeace Limited found in contempt of court for breach of interdict.

Orders

  • Greenpeace Limited is held to have committed contempt of court by breaching the interim interdict on 14 June 2019 and 16 June 2019.
  • The court will hear further submissions on the appropriate sanction to be imposed.