MBR Acres Ltd v Free the MBR Beagles (formerly Stop Animal Cruelty Huntingdon) (an unincorporated association by its representative Mel Broughton on behalf of the members of Free the MBR Beagles who are protesting within the area marked in blue on the Plan attached at Annex 1 of the Claim Form and/or engaging in unlawful activities against the Claimants and/or trespassing on the First Claimant's Land at MBR Acres Ltd, Wyton, Huntingdon PE28 2DT and/or posting on social media images and details of the officers and employees of MBR Acres Ltd, and the officers and employees of third party suppliers and service providers to MBR Acres Ltd)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 2996 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-003094 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 2996 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: QB-2021-003094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Caroline Bolton and Natalie Pratt (instructed by Mills & Reeve LLP) for the Claimants
James Nieto (instructed by Cohen Cramer Ltd) for the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Thirteenth Defendants
Adam Tear (of Scott-Moncrieff & Associates Ltd) for the Seventh Defendant
The Eleventh and Fourteenth Defendants appeared in person
The Fourth and Twelfth Defendants did not appear and were not represented
Hearing date: 4 October 2021
Approved Judgment
This judgment is divided into the following sections:
A: Introduction
| Section | Paragraphs | |
| A. | Introduction | [2] |
| B. | The Claimants | [3]–[6] |
| C. | The Defendants | [7]–[8] |
| D. | The Wyton Site and the injunction granted to Harlan Laboratories | [9]–[12] |
| E. | The protest activities | [13]–[27] |
| (1) The Wyton Site | [14]–[21] | |
| (2) The B&K Site | [22]–[23] | |
| (3) Media reports | [24]–[27] | |
| F. | The civil proceedings | [28]–[29] |
| G. | The claim against “Persons Unknown” | [30]–[33] |
| H. | The interim injunction: 20 August 2021 | [34]–[37] |
| I. | Transfer to Part 7 and the Particulars of Claim | [38]–[51] |
| J. | Claim against the First and Second Defendants on a representative basis | [52]–[67] |
| K. | Terms of the interim injunction sought by the Claimants | [68]–[69] |
| L. | Summary judgment application by the Seventh Defendant | [70]–[72] |
| M. | Application to adjourn by the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Thirteenth Defendants | [73]–[75] |
| N. | Interim injunctions | [76]–[85] |
| (1) The need for precision in injunction orders | [76] | |
| (2) Interim injunctions against “Persons Unknown” | [77]–[79] | |
| [80]–[82] | ||
| (4) Interim injunctions against demonstrations | [83]–[85] | |
| O. | Harassment: the Law | [86]–[96] |
| P. | Parties' submissions | [97]–[102] |
| Q. | Decision | [103]–[129] |
| (1) The claim against the First and Second Defendants | [106] | |
| (2) The definition of “Persons Unknown”, “unlawful activities” and “Defendants” | [107]–[109] | |
| (3) Injunction to prevent trespass onto the land of the First and/or Third Claimants | [110]–[115] | |
| (4) Exclusion Zone | [116]–[121] | |
| (5) Controlling the methods of protest | [122]–[128] | |
| (6) The particular paragraphs of the injunction sought by the Claimants | [129] | |
| R. | Next steps | [130]–[131] |
| Appendix – Draft/injunction order sought by the Claimants |
The judgment follows the arguments heard by the Court, on 4 October 2021, at the return date for an interim injunction application that was originally heard and granted in limited terms by Stacey J on 20 August 2021. The Defendants are all current or former protestors who have been demonstrating against the operations of the First Claimant at its site in Wyton, outside Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire (“the Wyton Site”). Relatively recently, there have been some protests at the Third Defendant's site in Humberside (“the B&K Site”).
B: The Claimants
The First and Third Claimants are subsidiaries of the Marshall Farm Group Ltd, incorporated in the US and trading as Marshall Bioresources. The First and Third Claimants breed animals for medical and clinical research at the Wyton and B&K Sites.
The First Claimant is licensed by the Secretary of State, under ss.2B-2C Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, to breed animals for supply to licensed entities authorised to conduct animal testing and research. It is presently a legal requirement, in the United Kingdom, that all potential new medicines intended for human use are tested on two species of mammal before they are tested on human volunteers in clinical trials.
The Second Claimant is an employee of the First Claimant and is its European Production Manager and Site Manager. In the proceedings, the Second Claimant also seeks to represent the officers and employees of the First Claimant, third-party suppliers, and service providers to the First Claimant pursuant to CPR 19.6.
The Fourth Claimant is an employee of the Third Claimant and is its Site Manager & UK Administration & European Quality Manager. The Fourth Claimant also seeks to represent the officers and employees of the Third Claimant, third-party suppliers, and service providers to the Third Claimant pursuant to CPR 19.6.
C: The Defendants
As presently formulated, the Claimants' claims against the first two Defendants are sought to be maintained against alleged “unincorporated associations”: “Free the MBR Beagles” and “Camp Beagle”. The Claimants seek to sue two individuals, the Third and Fifth Defendants, as representatives of these two “unincorporated associations”. I will return to the claims against the First and Second Defendants below (see Section J [52]–[67] below).
The Third to Ninth Defendants and Eleventh to Fourteenth Defendants are individuals who, the Claimants allege, have committed various civil wrongs as part of their protest and against whom they seek an interim (and ultimately, a final) injunction. The Eleventh to Fourteenth Defendants are new defendants that the Claimants have recently sought to add as defendants to the proceedings. The Tenth Defendants are “Persons Unknown” (see Section G [30]–[33] below).
D: The Wyton Site and the injunction granted to Harlan Laboratories
The Wyton Site is in countryside, about 2 miles to the Northeast of Huntingdon, very close to RAF Wyton. The only entrance to the Wyton site is situated on a straight section of the B1090 with the national speed limit. The road is a single carriageway with verges on either side. Vehicles arriving or leaving from the Wyton Site pass through outer and inner mechanical gates. This facilitates what has been termed an ‘airlock’ between the two gates enabling the First Claimant's security personnel to control access to the Wyton Site. The outer gate is set back about 1 metre from edge of the First Claimant's land which means that anyone standing immediately in front of the outer gate is on the First Claimant's land. The perimeter of the Wyton Site is protected by high outer and inner wire fences. As well as the First Claimant, another biotechnology company is situated on the Wyton Site.
The First Claimant is not the first company to operate at the Wyton Site. Prior to January 2018, the Wyton Site was owner by a series of other companies. One of the former owners was Harlan Laboratories UK Limited (“Harlan”). It also used the Wyton Site to breed animals for medical and clinical research and it, too, became the target of protests. In July 2011, it commenced civil proceedings seeking an injunction to restrain certain activities of the protestors. The claims were brought under ss. 3 and 3A Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“PfHA”). The defendants to the claim were (1) Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; (2) the National Anti-Vivisection Alliance; and (3) “ Persons Unknown who are conducting protesting (sic) and/or unlawful activities against the Claimants”. Named individuals were sued as representatives of the First and Second Defendants as “unincorporated associations”.
Various interim injunctions were granted against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MBR Acres Ltd v Michael Maher (aka John Thibeault)
...alleged breaches of an injunction order that was granted on 10 November 2021 (“the Injunction”). The judgment handed down on that date ( [2021] EWHC 2996 (QB)) explains the terms in which the Injunction was granted. It also sets out the background and circumstances in which the Injunction w......
-
Dr Erica Smith v Dr Christopher Backhouse
...and, in the particular context of harassment, Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) [53] and MBR Acres Ltd v Free The MBR Beagles [2021] EWHC 2996 (QB) [76], [91]–[94]; and vi) the Part 36 regime permits a degree of flexibility as to certainty of terms which are more generous than would ......
-
MBR Acres Ltd -v- Free the MBR Beagles
...background to the litigation, and the reasons for granting the injunction are contained in the judgment handed down on that date ( [2021] EWHC 2996 (QB)) (“the Injunction Judgment”). (1) Alternative service orders 3 On 12 August 2021, the Court granted permission for alternative service of......
-
Dr. Erica Smith v Dr. Christopher Backhouse
...and, in the particular context of harassment, Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) [53] and MBR Acres Ltd v Free The MBR Beagles [2021] EWHC 2996 (QB) [76], [91]–[94]. vi) The proposed undertakings came initially as a result of a Part 36 Offer and that regime permits a degree of flexi......