Teledyne UK Ltd v Julian Allen Gao

Hearing date: 25 th July 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be 10:30am on 01 August 2025.

Richard Wright KC:

Introduction

This case was listed before me on Friday 25 ^th July 2025 for final hearing of a claim for injunctive relief in respect of twelve remaining Named Defendants and for a review of an existing interim order against four categories Persons Unknown Defendants.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I granted a final injunction against the Named Defendants, and having conducted a review, a five year continuation of the injunction against the four categories of Persons Unknown Defendants subject to further annual review as set out in the terms set out in my Order attached to this Judgement at Annexe A.

These are my reasons for making that Order.

The Claim

By this Claim the Claimant seeks injunctive relief to:

i) restrain acts of trespass at six of its sites (Shipley, Lincoln, Wirral, Chelmsford, Presteigne and Newbury). Three of these sites (Shipley, Lincoln and Chelmsford) hold Facility Security Clearance (formerly known as ‘List X’ status) by reason of the Claimant holding contracts with the UK Ministry of Defence, which requires the Claimant to safeguard assets classified ‘SECRET’ or above on its premises;

ii) restrain interferences with its common law right to access the highway from the Shipley Site only;

iii) restrain acts of public nuisance (obstruction of the highway) in relation to the adopted highway serving the Shipley Site only (that road being known as ‘Acorn Park’).

Factual Background

The Claimant holds the freehold title to sites in Shipley, Lincoln and Chelmsford and the leasehold title to sites in the Wirral, Presteigne and Newbury, from which it conducts its business.

Across those sites the Claimant produces specialised components and subsystems for medical, science, aerospace, defence and industrial applications. The products it manufactures are for commercial use in a wide range of industrial markets, including defence and aerospace. The manufactured components and subsystems are incorporated by the Claimant's customers into their own products. Some products have military end-uses and are manufactured for use by the UK Ministry of Defence, NATO member states and other allied nations. Some products are exported under licence to Israel.

By reason of its business, the Claimant has become a target for direct-action protest, especially by activists protesting at the conflict in the Middle East. In particular, the group known as ‘Palestine Action’ has frequently targeted the Claimant's sites. On 4 ^th July 2025 the website of the organisation was removed following the groups proscription. Prior to that, and as recently as 25 ^th June 2025, the six sites of the Claimant in respect of which this injunction is sought, were published on the website as ‘targets’ for direct action.

Each of the Named Defendants has been arrested at one of the Claimant's sites throughout either 2024 or 2025 in connection with alleged acts of unlawful protest, carried out under the banner of Palestine Action. Specifically:

i) D1 (Julian Allen Gao), D2 (Ruby Hamill), D3 (Daniel Jones) and D4 (Najam Shah) were all arrested at the Shipley Site on 2 April 2024;

ii) D5 (Rickly Southall), D6 (Amareen Afzal) and D7 (Serena Fenton) were all arrested at the Shipley Site on 15 May 2024;

iii) D14 (Autumn Taylor-Ward) was arrested at the Wirral Site on 5 July 2024;

iv) D16 (Lara Downes) and D17 (Gabrielle Middleton) were arrested at the Wirral Site on 2 October 2024; and

v) D19 (Mary Ensell) and D20 (Harry Wade) were arrested at the Shipley Site on 28 January 2025.

The Claimant's sites have been the subject of protests on many occasions, many of which the Claimant acknowledges to have been peaceful and lawful. No instance of peaceful protest has been relied upon in support of the Claim. The Claimant relies upon evidence derived from a number of witness statements and supporting exhibits of protests that were not peaceful or lawful and occurred on thirteen different dates at the following locations namely:

i. 9 December 2022, Presteigne Site

ii. 28 September 2023, Chelmsford Site

iii. 26 December 2023, Shipley Site

iv. 2 April 2024, Shipley Site

v. 15 May 2024, Shipley Site

vi. 5 July 2024, Wirral Site

vii. 2 October 2024, Wirral Site

viii. 30 October 2024, Shipley Site

ix. 20 November 2024, Shipley Site

x. 28 November 2024, Shipley Site

xi. 19 December 2024, Shipley Site

xii. 28 January 2025, Shipley Site

xiii. 18 February 2025, Shipley Site

Many of those incidents resulted in significant financial loss being caused to the Claimant as is further evidenced in the witness statements relied upon in support of the application. In particular the losses included:

i) Presteigne Site (9 December 2022) – £1.2million property damage, US$1m sales unable to be completed and shipped, £266,000 loss by reason of disruption to business;

ii) Shipley Site (26 December 2023) – £35,000 property damage;

iii) Shipley Site (2 April 2024) – £571,000 property damage, £300,000 loss of revenue;

iv) Shipley Site (15 May 2024) – £68,000 property damage, £60,000 loss of revenue;

v) Wirral Site (5 July 2024) – £1000 property damage, £6400 loss of revenue;

vi) Wirral Site (2 October 2024) – £148,000 property damage (temporary repairs only), a further £335,00 is expected to be spent on permanent repairs, £14,000 loss of revenue;

vii) Shipley Site (28 January 2025) – £3402.16 property damage.

The Claimant company and its sites have not been the only targets for protests by unidentified members of the Palestine Action organisation. Since the commencement of this Claim, and in direct consequence of their role in bringing it on behalf of the Claimant, Keystone Law and Manan Singh (the partner at that firm with conduct of the litigation) have been targeted in a number of incidents. In particular:

i) 10 March 2025, Keystone Law (Chancery Lane) – four unidentified persons attended Keystone Law's offices at 2:19am and smashed the front window. A re-purposed fire extinguisher was used to spray red paint on the outside of the building, and the hose also inserted in the hole in the smashed window to spray paint inside the reception area. The pavement was stencilled with “DROP TELEDYNE”. The action was publicised on the Palestine Action Instagram account;

ii) 10/11 May 2025, Black Sheep Coffee (Southampton Buildings – off Chancery Lane) – multiple posters were affixed to the outside of the coffee shop, in which Mr Singh was named and pictured, and his affiliation with Keystone Law given, and was accused of being complicit in war crimes and genocide. The poster carried the Palestine Action group logo;

iii) 15 May 2025, King's College London – a student contacted Mr Singh by email to advise that they had come across the same poster when leaving the library the day before.

Procedural History

This claim first came before Bourne J on 20 ^th December 2024. On that date, having considered evidence in witness statements prepared by Nicholas Wargent (a Director of the Claimant company) and Manan Singh (the solicitor with conduct of the litigation on behalf of the Claimant) he issued an interim injunction against the first seven Named Defendants and four categories of Persons Unknown. The Order of Bourne J fixed a further hearing for consideration of the continuation of his interim Order for 24 ^th January 2025. The decision of Bourne J, in which he sets out in detail the evidence that he considered (which evidence I have also considered on the application for a final Order), is reported at [2024] EWHC 3538 (KB).

On 24 ^th January Tipples J heard an application for the continuation of the Order of Bourne J by which time a further seven named Defendants had been added to the Claim....