Key Facts
- •Arla Foods, a major dairy co-operative, sought injunctions against animal rights activists (Animal Rising) to prevent protests at four of its sites.
- •Previous protests involved trespassing, highway obstruction, and damage to property.
- •The case involved 34 named defendants and six categories of persons unknown.
- •The named defendants agreed to undertakings, except one identified only by a photograph.
- •The Claimants sought a five-year injunction with annual review against persons unknown.
- •The court considered the balance between protest rights (Articles 10 and 11 ECHR) and property rights (Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR).
Legal Principles
Articles 10 and 11 ECHR do not grant a right to trespass.
Boyd v Ineos Upstream Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 515
Proportionality test for interference with Articles 10 and 11 rights in the context of highway obstruction (section 137(1) Highways Act 1980).
DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23
Test for precautionary injunction against named defendants: strong probability of breach and inadequacy of damages.
Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2
Test for injunction against persons unknown: compelling need for protection, procedural safeguards, full disclosure, temporal and territorial limitations.
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47
Adjoining landowner's right of access to the highway is subject to the public's right to reasonable use.
Marshall v Blackpool Corporation [1935] AC 16
Outcomes
Granted injunctions against both the identified defendant and persons unknown.
Strong probability of future unlawful actions causing irreparable harm; compelling justification for injunction against persons unknown given the nature of the protests and difficulty identifying all participants; proportionality test met.