Hubbard v Pitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STAMP,LORD JUSTICE ORR |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0513-1 |
| Date | 13 May 1975 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0513-1
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Stamp and
Lord Justice Orr.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by Mr. Pitt, Mr. McEnery, Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Sternberg from order of Mr. Justice Forbes made on 8th November, 1974.
Mr. A.T. HOOLAHAN, Q.C., and Mr. R. RAMPTON (instructed by Messrs. Basil Greenby & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiffs.
Mr. DAVID TURNER-SAMUELS, Q.C., and The Right Honourable Lord Gifford (instructed by Messrs, Seifert Sedley & Co.) appeared on behalf of Mrs. Ryan.
Mr. DAVID TURNER-SAMUELS, Q.C., and The Right honourable Lord Gifford (instructed by Messrs. Clinton Davis & Co.) appeared on behalf" of the Appellant, Mr. Sternberg.
The Appellants Mr. Pitt and Mr. McEnery, appeared in person.
Some years ago Islington was run down in the world? Its houses were in a dilapidated condition. They were tenanted by many poor families. In recent years Islington has become a desirable area. Property men have stepped in. They have bought up the houses and persuaded the tenants to leave. They have done them up and sold them at a profit. Now they are occupied by single families who are well-to-do.
A group of social workers deplored this development. They have tried to stop it. They have conducted a campaign against it called the "Islington Tenants' Campaign". They accuse the property men of "harassing" the tenants, that is, of making the lives of the tenants so uncomfortable that they can stand it no longer and leave. Such "harassment" is unlawful under Section 30 of the Rent Act 1965. They also accuse the property men of "winkling" out the tenants, that is, of offering the tenants sums of money to induce the to leave, or using other means of exerting pressure on them.
In the course of their campaign these social workers have submitted a list of demands to local estate agents which they ask them to accept: "1. No property to be handled by estate agents if any tenant has been evicted or harassed. 2. All houses for sale to be offered to sitting tenants before the house goes on the market. 3. All rent books to be properly filled in, according to the law: tenants to be notified of any change of landlord. No tenants to be visited except by arrangement. All visitors to obtain written authorisation and to state their business. 5. All offers and requests by estate agents to tenants to be in writing accompanied by a written statement of the tenants' legal rights, approved by Islington Tenants' Association".
If the tenants have been subjected to undue pressure by estate agents, these demands do not seem to be very unreasonable. Some of themonly state what the law already requires. There might be some discussion of details, but otherwise the demands seem to be reasonable enough.
This group of social workers have singled out as their chief target a firm of estate agents called Prebble & Co., who are one of the leading firms in Islington. These agents have shown themselves quite willing to discuss the demands, but the social workers (it would seem to me quite unreasonably) required the partners to go to their own premises for the meeting. So nothing was achieved.
Now we come to the crunch of the case. The social workers, in pursuance of their campaign, have picketed' the offices of Prebble & Co. The word "picket" is used, no doubt, because of the example shown by workers who, in a trade dispute, picket in support of their demands. But the "pickets" here consist of a small number of men and women, mostly young. There were sometimes four, and occasionally up to eighty They stood about on the pavement in front of Prebble's offices. They only did it for about three hours on Saturday mornings. Different persons on different Saturdays. They carried placards with the words;
"TENANTS WHATCH OUT PREBBLES ABOUT"
and
"IF PREBBLES IN — YOU'RE OUT".
They also handed leaflets to passers-by which explain their reasons for the pickets:
Islington Tenants' Campaign
The Prebble Pickets
Up until a few years ago Barnsbury and other areas of South Islington were solid working-class communities. In recent years there has been an invasion of professional people: and local working people have been forced out by harassment and winkling in many cases. Houses have been improved, roads closed to traffic purely in the interests of the middle-class influx.
Many estate agents have made a lot of money by this process. The most prominent was Prebble & Co., whose sale boards infested the area. At the same time harassment and winkling were rife.
This process is still going on and earlier this year angered tenants decided to fight back. Prebble & Co. were picked as the main target. The campaign began with a public meeting followed by a week of activity, coming to a head with a mass march from Stonefield Street to Islington Green which passed five estate agents' offices on the way. At each office a list of demands of conduct to safeguard Tenants' interests was handed in. To date Prebble & Co. have still not agreed to meet the Campaign to discuss the demands. Until Prebble & Co. formally agree to bring their activities into line with our demands the picket of their office will continue. Picket of their offices at Camden and Tottenham Will be stating.
The Tenants' Campaign
We are a group of tenants, mainly in the south of the Borough. As well as campaigning against estate agents, we arc active in many other Tenants' issues: fighting individual property speculators; supporting tenants against harassment; persuading the Council to ensure decent housing for all.
Only united tenant action from all parts of the Borough will stop the spread of the problems in housing and we invite all tenants to attend our meeting every Thursday at 8.00 p.m. at 176 Barnsbury Road, N.1. Support the Islington Tenants' Campaign".
The people who stood in front of Prebble's offices have behaved in orderly and peaceful manner throughout. The pickets were arranged withthe full knowledge and agreement of the local police. The police station is only 300 yards away. The police inspector has thanked them for their co-operation in making sure that nothing unlawful was done. In the photographs the police can be seen talking in a friendly manner with the pickets.
On 26th June 1974, the partners in Prebble Co. brought this fiction against ten of the persons who had on occasion picketed their offices. Mr. Justice Forbes held that the use of a highway for picketing is not a lawful operation unless it is done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. He granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from "besetting" the plaintiffs' premises or aiding or abet in others to do so. The defendants appeal to this Court. They say that they always have been anxious to do nothing unlawful. They ire ready to undertake not to obstruct, molest or intimidate anyone: and not to atten at or near the plaintiffs' premises save for the purpose of communicating information.
So here is the point: the plaintiffs say that, by standing at or near the premises on Saturday mornings with their placards, the defendant are "besetting" the premises and should be restrained from doing so. The defendants say that they are doing nothing unlawful but only exercising a right of protest and should not be restrained.
To solve the problem, it is necessary to inquire what ire the restrictions placed by the law on such activities as these.
1. THE LAW OF LIBEL
By the placards and leaflets, the defendants arc undoubtedly casting serious slurs on the plaintiffs. If the words are untrue, the defendant: can be restrained from reposing them. But the defendants assert that they are true and that they are ready to prove it. In such a situation the Courts never grant an interim injunction before the trial. Quite recently we had a case where a man was angry because some builders had,he thought, made his front door very badly. So he took it off its hinges, put it on the front of his Rolls-Royce motor car, and drove it round the roads. It bore words saying: "This door is typical of the poor materials used. Be warned". We refused to grant an interim injunction — see Crest Houses Limited. v. Ascott, 4th February 1975. The principle on which we go was stated many years ago by a very strong Court of Appeal consisting of Lord Coleridge, Chief Justice, Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Lindley, Lord Justice Bowen and Lord Justice Lopes in Bonnard v. Perryman (1891) 2 Ch. at page 284:
"The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an alleged libel".
Now the right of protest is one aspect of the right of free speech it is the right which the defendants claim here. They say that the words are true and that the matter is of public concern. They think that tenants should be warned against the activities of Prebble & Co. They hove chosen their offices as the most effective place at which to make their protest. I see nothing in the law of libel to stop them — at any rate, not until there is a trial of the issue whether the words were true, or not.
2. THE LAW OF HIGHWAYS
(i) The Magistrates
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ng Cheng Kiat; Senator Lau Keng Siong and Another
- Heah Seok Yeong Realty Sdn Bhd; Sivaperuman
- Mohamed Zainuddin bin Puteh v Yap Chee Seng
- Ramson v Barker and Another
-
Table of Cases
...[1997] S.C.C.A. No. 656 ................................................................................... 109 , 111 Hubbard v. Pitt, [1976] Q.B. 142 (C.A.) .............................................................. 235 Hughes v. Sunbeam Corp. (Canada) (2002), 219 D.L.R. (4th) 467, 25 ......
-
Interlocutory injunctions: american cyanamid comes of age
...their premises. The majority, upholding the grant of the injunction, held that "special 6 At 260. 7 [1976] Q.B.122. 8 Ibid. at 133. 9 [1976] Q.B.142. factors" were merely matters which could affect the balance of convenience and could never justify a return to the prima facie case approach.......
-
Interlocutory injunctions: revisiting the three-pronged test.
...seem to have in themselves some elements of flexibility (ibid. at 139 [internal references omitted]). (32) Ibid. at 141. (33) (1975), [1976] Q.B. 142, [1975] 3 A11 E.R. 1 (34) Ibid. at 185, 188. (35) Ibid. at 178. (36) (1975), [1976] Ch. 63, [1976] 1 A11 E.R. 25 (C.A.) [Bryanston cited to C......
-
TORTIOUS INTRUSIONS UPON SOLITUDE AND SECLUSION
...479. 43Fleming's The Law of Torts (Carolyn Sappideen & Prue Vines eds) (Australia: Law Book Co, 10th Ed, 2011) at p 687. 44Hubbard v Pitt[1976] QB 142. 45Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers[1986] Ch 20 at 65. 46Bernstein v Skyviews and General Ltd[1978] QB 479 at 489. 47[1997] AC 655. 48......