Harrods Ltd & Ors v McNally & Ors

Variation of an injunction regulating protest requires a significant change of circumstances and a fresh balance between the competing rights of the parties and the public. The assessment is fact-sensitive and includes the importance of the location, the duration and impact of the protest, and interference with property and public rights. Changes in the character and scale of events may justify tighter regulation, provided effective protest remains possible nearby. Restrictions on protest equipment must be no wider than justified. A long-running dispute may justify extending an order for several years, while preserving a right to vary or discharge it, rather than making the order permanent.

The claimants sought variations of injunctions regulating protests against the sale of fur products at Harrods. The applications concerned outdoor and in-store events, loudhailers, photography and filming, and the duration of the order. The defendants argued that the variations were unsupported by any material change of circumstances and would unjustifiably restrict their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The central issue was whether the alleged changes justified revising the existing balance between the parties' rights.

1. Variation and changed circumstances. The existing injunction represented a fair balance between the claimants, defendants and public. A variation adverse to the defendants required assessment of the significance of any change in circumstances and a fresh balance of the competing rights, including Articles 10 and 11. The fact-sensitive approach in The Mayor Commonality and Citizens of London v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160 was applicable.
2. Outdoor and in-store events. The completed development and pedestrianisation of Hans Crescent, together with the changed scale and character of events, amounted to a material change. The Boxing Day event had been adversely affected by the location, banners and conduct of the protest. The defendants could therefore be excluded from the relevant Hans Crescent area during regulated events, provided they retained an effective protest area outside it, including access to the busy area near Knightsbridge tube station. The substance of draft Order A was approved on this issue.
3. Loudhailers. A restriction was justified within the exclusion zone in plan two. The proposed wider zone in plan three, further restrictions along Brompton Road and the pedestrianised tube-station area, and reduction of the seven-hour period to two hours were unjustified. The order was to retain the seven-hour period and use the plan-two zone.
4. Photography and filming. The amendments clarifying the existing restrictions were minimal and were allowed.
5. Duration. The continuing protest and the likelihood that it would continue indefinitely justified a five-year extension. A permanent order was refused. The defendants' interests were protected by retaining liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order.
6. The revised order and plans were to be supplied for approval. The first defendant was to give undertakings in amended terms, with injunctions against the other defendants; failing agreement, injunctions would be made against all defendants.