Valero Energy Ltd & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors
[2024] EWHC 134 (KB)
Arla Foods Limited & Anor v Persons Unknown
26 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1952 (Ch)
High Court
Arla Foods won a court order stopping animal rights protesters from disrupting their dairy farms. The judge agreed there was a high chance of future protests causing serious problems, and that the company needed protection, even though it had to balance that against the protesters' right to be heard. The order is strict and very specific, but it still lets people protest peacefully.
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.