Hall & Ors v Save Newchurch Guinea Pigs (Campaign) & Ors

Interim injunctive relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may restrain conduct which is not itself tortious or otherwise unlawful where the order is reasonably necessary to protect the claimant’s legitimate interests. A good arguable case of unlawful conduct is relevant but is not the governing test.

An exclusion zone must be no wider than necessary and proportionate to the protection sought. The court must balance the claimant’s rights against freedom of expression, movement, assembly and association. Existing police powers and other remedies are relevant, but their availability does not prevent the court granting an injunction where they have proved inadequate.

The claimants, farmers and persons associated with a guinea-pig breeding business, sought continuation and extension of interim injunctions against animal-rights campaigners. The claim was brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The issues were whether injunctions should continue against particular defendants, the permitted frequency, duration and location of demonstrations, the maximum number of demonstrators, whether the sixth claimant should represent residents of additional parishes under CPR 19.6, and whether a large exclusion zone should be imposed.

1. Injunctions against defendants. The claimants established a good arguable case that each defendant’s involvement in the campaign made injunctive relief necessary for the protection of their legitimate interests. The correct test was that stated in Burris v Azadani [1995] 1 WLR 1373, rather than simply whether the defendant had participated in tortious or unlawful activity. Injunctions were therefore continued or granted against all defendants.
2. Demonstrations. The existing restrictions were modified. Demonstrations could take place weekly on Sundays, between noon and 3 pm, with no more than 25 protestors. A 100-yard exclusion zone applied around the homes of protected persons and the premises of contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers.
3. Representative order. The sixth claimant was not permitted to represent residents of the additional five parishes. Representative capacity did not depend on a majority vote. More importantly, the wider community’s interest was indirect, arising from conduct directed at protected persons, and adequate protection of those persons would remove the need for wider protection.
4. Proposed exclusion zone. The court had jurisdiction to impose an exclusion zone under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The availability of police powers and other public-order legislation did not make the application an abuse of process, because those powers had not prevented the continuing campaign of intimidation, harassment, criminal damage and arson. Nevertheless, an exclusion zone covering approximately 200 square kilometres was a draconian remedy. The court declined to impose it at that stage because the modified injunction should first be tested. The matter could be restored if that protection proved inadequate.
5. The approach to interim relief where Convention rights are engaged was informed by Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2004] 3 WLR 918, and the ordinary injunction principles in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 AC 396.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.