Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd & Anor v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ("SHAC") & Anor

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a corporate entity may seek an injunction under section 3A where harassment of individuals is intended to persuade that entity to act or refrain from acting. Group harassment may be directed at individuals forming a class, such as employees or suppliers’ employees.

Harassment requires conduct which is objectively oppressive and unacceptable, assessed in its social or working context. Peaceful protest and campaigning remain lawful, but Articles 10 and 11 rights do not protect harassment, trespass, intimidation or criminal conduct. Permanent injunctions may be granted where ongoing harassment makes damages inadequate, provided the restrictions are proportionate.

Harlan Laboratories UK Limited and Theodore Robert Wasky brought a Part 8 claim against SHAC, NAVA and persons unknown. They sought relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in respect of protests, intimidation and unlawful activities directed at Harlan, its employees, visitors and employees of associated suppliers and service providers.

Interim injunctions had previously been granted. The defendants did not appear. The claimants applied for summary judgment and permanent injunctions. The issues included representation of unincorporated associations, the identification of persons unknown, the scope of section 3A, whether the evidence established harassment, and whether the proposed restrictions on protest were proportionate.

1. Summary judgment. The court applied CPR rule 24.2. The defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, and there was no compelling reason for a trial. The evidence established repeated conduct causing alarm, distress, fear and intimidation, which was oppressive and went beyond legitimate peaceful protest.
2. Scope of the statutory protection. Although a corporate entity cannot itself be a victim of harassment under section 7(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it may apply under section 3A as the person whom the harassment is intended to persuade. Employees and individual employees of suppliers or service providers may be protected persons. The group-harassment provision requires harassment of two or more persons and an intention to persuade a person, including a corporate entity, to act or refrain from acting.
3. Procedural representation. SHAC and NAVA were properly represented by named individuals under CPR rule 19.6. Persons unknown could be sued by description because the description identified those included and excluded. The description was confined to persons protesting or conducting unlawful activities against the claimants.
4. Permanent injunction. Damages would not provide an adequate remedy because they would not prevent continuing harassment. A permanent injunction was therefore justified under sections 3 and 3A of the 1997 Act and section 37(1) of the 1981 Act.
5. Human rights and proportionality. The restrictions pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and crime and protecting the rights of others. They allowed protest in designated areas, leafleting and larger periodic demonstrations, while controlling obstruction, excessive noise, photography, face coverings and harassment. The restriction concerning suppliers’ premises was reduced from 100 metres to 50 metres and the reference to loitering was removed to achieve a proportionate balance. A permanent injunction was granted in the amended terms.