Monsanto Plc v Tilly and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1999 |
| Date | 25 November 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Pill and Lord Justice Mummery.
Trespass - damage to genetically modified crops - necessity or public interest no defence
Campaigners against genetically modified crops and plants who entered upon property where field trials were being conducted and pulled up a proportion of the genetically modified crops in order to obtain publicity for their campaign were not entitled to rely upon the defence of necessity or public interest in an action against them for trespass.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment, allowing an appeal by the claimant, Monsanto plc, against the order of Mr Justice Klevan dated April 20, 1999, that the first to sixth defendants, Rowan Tilley, Jo Hamilton, Kathryn Tulip, Melanie Jarman, Zoe Elford and Andrew Wood, sued on their own behalf and on behalf of Genetix Snowball, an unincorporated association, should have unconditional leave to defend an action for trespass against them by the claimant. Four additional defendants were subsequently joined in the action but took no part in the appeal.
By its action, Monsanto sought injunctions against the defendants prohibiting them, inter alia, from trespassing on certain land, from uprooting, destroying or otherwise damaging or interfering with the claimant's plants or crops, or from planting, inserting into the land or leaving any crop or other article there.
Mr Michael Lyndon-Stanford, QC and Mr Simon Parker for Monsanto; Mr Richard Gordon, QC and Mr Stephen Cragg for the first, second and sixth defendants; the third, fourth and fifth defendants appeared in person.
LORD JUSTICE STUART -SMITH said that the claimant was licensed by the Department of the Environment to carry out research and development by conducting trials of genetically modified (GM) plants and crops at licensed sites in the United Kingdom.
In about June 1998 a number of people, including the defendants, founded Genetix Snowball, an unincorporated association. The object of the association was to campaign against GM plants and crops and those, like the claimants, who were engaged in their research, development and production, to the end that in the first instance the Government should impose a five-year moratorium on the growth of GM crops in Britain, except those in an enclosed environment.
The defence provided a summary of the views of the defendants and the association in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd Claimant/Respondent v (1) Temujin International Ltd (2) Temujin Services Ltd (3) Hakkisan Finance Corporation Ltd 1st Applicant (4) Myrzaly Ltd 2nd Applicant (5) Norgulf Holdings Ltd (6) Incomeborts Ltd (7) Tigerkhan Ltd 3rd Applicant Defendants
...statement of case which it is alleged discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim. In Monsanto plc v Tilly (1999) Times, 30 November 1999; Stuart Smith LJ said that r 24.2 gives somewhat wider scope for dismissing an action or defence. In Taylor's case he said that, ......
-
White v Withers LLP
... ... contained numerous documents, many of which were covered by legal professional privilege, others were of a confidential nature and related to his personal life, others related to his personal, ... : Nor is there much scope for public interest serving as a defence to trespass: see Monsanto v Tilley & ors [2000] Env ... LR 313 where it did not avail the environmental group who entered on ... ...
-
R (Mullaney) v Adjudication Panel for England
...92 The further research carried out after the hearing confirms (a) that there is no “public interest” defence to trespass (see Monsanto v Tilly & Othrs [2000] Env. L. R. 313 in the judgment of Pill LJ under the heading “defence of public interest”, and (b) that there is defence of necessity......
-
Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3)
...of case which it is alleged discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim. In Monsanto plc v Tilly, The Times, 30 November 1999; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No 1924 of 1999; Stuart Smith LJ said that rule 24.2 gives somewhat wider scope for dismissing a......
-
Necessity and murder
...powers in relation to the conduct of foreign affairsand the deployment of the armed forces: [2006] UKHL 16 at [27]–[31].47. [1999] All ER (D) 1321 (CA).52 The Journal of Criminal Law context of adversarial proceedings between private parties. It also said that such questions concerningthe p......