Exolum Pipeline System Limited & ORS v Persons Unknown
[2024] EWHC 1015 (KB)
Jockey Club Racecourses Limited v Persons Unknown & Ors
9 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1786 (Ch)
High Court
The Jockey Club got a court order to stop unknown animal rights protesters from disrupting horse races at Epsom. The judge considered the risk of violence and disruption, and despite some protesters saying they'd stop, the judge thought the risk was still there. The court made sure the order was fair to everyone and would be reviewed regularly.
Key Facts
- •Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd. sought a continuation of injunctive relief against persons unknown to prevent trespassing and disruption at Epsom racecourse.
- •The disruption was feared to be orchestrated by Animal Rising, an animal rights group.
- •Previous disruptions at other events, including the Grand National, had occurred.
- •Interim injunctions were previously granted.
- •Two named defendants settled, leaving only the claims against persons unknown.
- •Animal Rising's website initially contained threats of disruption but later removed them.
- •The court considered the Supreme Court decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45 regarding injunctions against persons unknown.
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction to grant injunctions against persons unknown, particularly 'newcomer injunctions'
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45
Requirements for granting injunctions against persons unknown, including compelling need, procedural protection, full disclosure, and temporal/territorial limitations.
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] 2 WLR 45
Balancing the claimant's rights with the protesters' Article 10 (free speech) and Article 11 (freedom of association) rights.
Exolum Pipeline System Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1015 (KB)
Outcomes
The court granted a newcomer injunction against persons unknown.
The court found a continuing risk of disruption despite Animal Rising's statements, considering their previous actions and the implausibility of their reasons for suspending the campaign. The court determined that an injunction was the only practical means to prevent disruption, considering the inadequacy of alternative measures like byelaws or criminal prosecution.