MBR ACRES LIMITED & Ors v FREE THE MBR BEAGLES & Ors

An interim injunction should not be extended on an ex parte basis without a compelling evidential and jurisdictional foundation. The applicant must identify an arguable civil claim raising a serious issue to be tried. The familiar principles in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd (No.1) require consideration of the adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. Any restriction affecting protest or freedom of expression must also be necessary and proportionate. Where relief is sought against named defendants, the alleged wrongdoing must be properly pleaded and fairly particularised. A court may exceptionally grant interim relief without an underlying claim where necessary to make its orders effective or aid the administration of justice, but such jurisdiction is narrow and requires clear justification.

The claimants sought an adjournment of an application to vary an interim injunction granted in November 2021, so that unrepresented defendants could obtain professional representation. The variation application was adjourned to 21 and 22 July 2022.

The claimants then made an ex parte application for immediate additional restrictions, including a 20-metre exclusion zone around the site and a prohibition on drone flights below 150 metres. They relied on recent trespass incidents and alleged drone use. The central questions were whether immediate relief was justified on the evidence, whether the proposed restrictions were proportionate, and whether there was a proper pleaded and jurisdictional basis for relief against the named defendants.

1. Adjournment. The variation application was adjourned to 21 and 22 July 2022. The possible availability of pro bono professional representation for several unrepresented defendants was a significant case-management consideration. The adjournment promoted equality of arms and fair participation while causing no unacceptable delay.
2. Immediate relief refused. The court refused to grant either the proposed perimeter exclusion zone or the drone restriction on an ex parte basis. The recent break-ins were unlawful and might give rise to criminal proceedings and contempt proceedings, but there was no evidence that any named defendant had been involved. The evidence indicated that a different group might have been responsible.
3. Interim injunction principles. The power to grant an interim injunction is not ordinarily detached from an underlying civil claim. The court recognised that Broad Idea International Limited v Convoy Collateral Ltd identified limited circumstances in which relief may be granted without a claim for substantive relief, particularly where necessary to make orders effective or assist the administration of justice. Those circumstances are narrowly confined. The applicable principles remain those in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd (No.1): a serious issue to be tried, inadequacy of damages, and the balance of convenience.
4. Proportionality and evidence. The proposed restrictions were not shown to prevent the recent conduct. The drone evidence was speculative and did not establish that drones had been used to obtain intelligence assisting a break-in. The photographs appeared directed to public campaigning about animal research. Restrictions interfering with protest and freedom of expression therefore required careful consideration of necessity, proportionality and less intrusive alternatives at the inter partes hearing.
5. Named defendants and pleading fairness. There was no proper basis for immediate relief against named defendants in respect of drone use. The existing pleading concerned physical trespass at the gateway, not drone trespass. A materially different allegation could not fairly be introduced without proper pleading and an opportunity for each defendant to answer it.
6. The applications for the additional injunction terms were not determined on their merits and were not granted at that hearing. The claimants could renew them at the adjourned inter partes hearing.

The judgment describes an interim injunction granted on 10 November 2021, following an earlier order in August 2021. The present judgment concerned an application to vary that injunction and an urgent ex parte application for further restrictions. The variation application was adjourned to 21 and 22 July 2022; the further restrictions were not granted and could be renewed at that hearing.