Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown Who are, without the Consent of the Claimants, Entering or Remaining on Land and in Buildings on Any of the Sites Listed in Schedule 2 of the Claim Form (“The Sites”), Those Being:

Hearing date: 23 July 2024

APPROVED JUDGMENT

Jonathan Hilliard KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:

Introduction

The First Claimant is the largest farmer-owned dairy co-operative in Europe, owned by approximately 9600 dairy farmers, 2,400 of whom are in the UK. It provides 40% of the milk supplied to supermarkets in the UK and is the largest supplier of milk in the UK. While it operates from several sites in the UK producing a range of dairy products, the present proceedings concern four of those sites that produce and distribute milk (the “Sites”). The four sites are at Aylesbury Dairy, Samian Way, Aston Clinton Aylesbury HP22 5EZ (the “Aylesbury Site”), Oakthorpe Dairy, Chequers Way, Palmers Green, London N13 6BU (the “Oakthorpe Site”), Hatfield Distribution Warehouse, 4000 Mosquito Way, Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9US (the “Hatfield Site”) and finally Pontefract Road, Leeds LS10 1AX and the National Distribution Centre at Leodis Way, Leeds LS10 1NN (the “Leeds Site”).

The Second Claimant, a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Claimant, holds the leasehold title to the Hatfield Site.

By the present Part 8 proceedings, the Claimants seek injunctions against a number of identified defendants and persons unknown to restrain future action at the Sites by animal rights activists associated with the protest group initially known as Animal Rebellion, which rebranded last year to Animal Rising (the “Claim”).

The Claimants sought and obtained from Bacon J on 31 August 2022 urgent and without notice relief to restrain apprehended unlawful acts of protest. The interim relief was continued by Fancourt J at a return date on 4 October 2022, and the Judge permitted the Claimants to add 31 named defendants. By way of a 25 October 2022 order, three further defendants were added, one of whom was identified only by a photograph rather than by name. Following the Claimants' 12 January 2023 application, the final disposal of the claim was adjourned pending the expedited appeal to the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council and Others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] 2 WLR 45, which concerned whether injunctions could be granted against persons unknown and if so what the test for doing so should be. Following the handing down of the Supreme Court decision in Wolverhampton on 29 November 2023, the case was brought on for a final hearing before me to deal with the disposal of the claim against the identified Defendants and a continuation of the injunction order against the defendant persons unknown. This is my judgment following that hearing.

Therefore, the Defendants fall into two categories: 34 named or identified Defendants and six categories of persons unknown. 33 of the former category of Defendants are named and one—the 40 ^th Defendant—identified by photograph. All 33 of the named Defendants have now agreed to stays of the proceedings through consent orders in return for the giving of undertakings.

That leaves the 40 ^th defendant, who is identified by image 1 at Schedule 1A of the re-Amended Claim Form but whose name is not known by the Claimants and therefore who cannot be asked by them to sign an undertaking.

A number of the signed draft consent orders supplied to the Claimants at midnight the day before the hearing contained an error in the main body of it, so I agreed not to provide a draft judgment for 24 hours in order that these could be corrected, and I have duly made the consent orders in the terms sought.

The Claimants were represented before me by Caroline Bolton and Natalie Pratt. I am grateful for their submissions. The Defendants did not appear, were not represented, and have not acknowledged service or filed any evidence in the proceedings.

Decision

For the reasons set out below, I grant the order sought.

I shall take first the relevant factual background, before setting out the law and then applying it.

Relevant factual background

Animal Rising have two stated objections to the dairy industry: what they see as its contribution to climate change and its use of animals in the production of milk. For convenience, I shall refer to the individuals involved as animal rights protestors in this judgment.

The Claimants have adduced witness evidence from a number of sources:

(1) Four individuals to explain, among other things, the operation of the sites and the past actions on them: Joanne Taylor (Aylesbury), Melanie Savage (Hatfield); David Dons (Oakthorpe) and Anne-Frances Ball (Leeds);

(2) Nicholas McQueen (partner) and James Damarell (senior associate) of Walker Morris LLP, their solicitors;

(3) one of their directors; Afshin Amirahmadi; and

(4) Samantha Sage, the Quality, Environmental, Health and Safety Manager at the Aylesbury Site.

I have not had the benefit of having the evidence tested by arguments from the defendants. However, having considered it carefully, I have no reason to doubt its veracity or accuracy, and I accept it. I set out the key points from its below.

To understand the actions that have occurred and the causes of action relied on, it is first necessary to understand in outline the layout of the Sites and their operation.

The layout and operation of the Sites

The First Claimant holds the freehold title to the Aylesbury Site. The Aylesbury Site is the largest dairy in the UK, processing around 10% of the milk in the UK. Therefore, it is a significant contributor to the UK dairy industry. 700 members of staff are employed at the dairy and it is very busy, such that free access to the Site is required at all times to ensure that operations at the dairy can run, and that the surrounding road network remains free-flowing and is not adversely impacted by operations at the dairy. Around 300 trucks enter and leave the dairy each day, consisting of 160 raw milk deliveries and 140 outbound departures.

The trucks that enter and leave the site are a mixture of tankers and other HGV lorries, and as the A41 is the only access road to the site, apart from Samian Way, all vehicles travelling to and from the site use this road. There are three access points to the site, Gatehouses 1 to 3, each of which serves a different function: one is used for raw milk intake and outbound exits, another for access to the employee and visitor car park and the third as the outbound access. All of the access points are from Samian Way, which is an adopted highway for which the local highway authority is responsible. Gatehouses 1 and 2 are manned, and Gatehouse 3 is unmanned but visitors enter using a swipe-card at the barrier or by ringing the intercom to make themselves known to the security staff.

Significant security measures have been put in place at the site since the anticipation of protests in September 2022.

The Second Claimant holds a 15 year lease to the Hatfield Site. Arla operates the Hatfield Site as a distribution centre, employing 500 staff there. The centre handles around 350 million kilograms of palletised food products and around 520 million kilograms of fresh milk, which is delivered direct to the stores of...