Arla Foods Limited & Anor v Persons Unknown

Injunctions may restrain protest-related trespass, public nuisance and unlawful interference with an adjoining landowner’s access to the highway. Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR do not ordinarily justify trespass on private land or confer a right to protest there. For obstruction of the highway, however, proportionality must be assessed where Convention rights are engaged.

An injunction against a named defendant requires a strong probability of future breach and harm so grave and irreparable that damages would be inadequate. An injunction against persons unknown is an exceptional equitable remedy requiring compelling justification, a real and imminent threat, full disclosure, precise definition, effective notice, generous liberty to apply, and strict territorial and temporal limits. A five-year order with annual review was justified on the facts.

The claim concerned four dairy and distribution sites operated or occupied by the claimants. The claimants sought final injunctions against one identified defendant and six categories of persons unknown to restrain anticipated protest-related trespass, obstruction of access, public nuisance and interference with vehicles and roads.

Interim injunctions had been granted in 2022. Final disposal was adjourned pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47. Most named defendants gave undertakings and consented to stays. The court therefore considered the remaining identified defendant and the proposed injunction against newcomers, including the requirements for Convention-compatible relief and the appropriate duration and safeguards.

1. Named defendant. The court granted the final injunction. There was a strong probability that the identified defendant would participate in future unlawful action, having previously trespassed on a site, filmed and supported protest activity, and remained subject to an ongoing campaign directed at the claimants. Future harm would be difficult to remedy by damages because of likely financial loss, enforcement difficulties and risks of physical injury.
2. Trespass. Trespass was an unjustifiable intrusion upon land in another’s possession. Articles 10 and 11 did not confer a right to protest on privately owned land and did not ordinarily justify trespass. The claimants’ property rights under article 1 of the First Protocol were also relevant.
3. Public nuisance and highway access. The court accepted that the core requirements of public nuisance should correspond with section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980: more than de minimis obstruction, deliberate conduct, and absence of lawful authority or excuse. Peaceful and reasonable use of a highway remained lawful, but prolonged occupation, obstruction of vehicles and deliberate disruption of dairy operations were disproportionate. The claimants’ right of access to the highway was likewise unlawfully interfered with.
4. Persons unknown. Following Wolverhampton and Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1786, the remedy required compelling justification, a real and imminent threat, exhaustion or inadequacy of other measures, full and frank disclosure, precise identification of the affected classes, clear restrictions limited to what was necessary, effective notice, liberty to apply, and strict territorial and temporal limits.
5. The evidence established a compelling justification. Security, policing and byelaws could not realistically prevent serious future disruption. The order was confined to defined acts and roads immediately surrounding the sites. A five-year maximum with annual review was proportionate, and no cross-undertaking in damages was required because the order restrained conduct that was unlawful or highly likely to be unlawful.

The orders sought were granted.

First-instance decision. The claim had previously been subject to interim injunctions granted by Bacon J and continued by Fancourt J. Final disposal was adjourned pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47.