MBR Acres Limited & Ors v John Curtin

A contra mundum “newcomer” injunction requires a compelling need to protect civil rights which other remedies do not adequately meet, procedural safeguards, full disclosure, territorial and temporal limits, and a just and convenient order. Its terms must correspond to unlawful conduct, be no wider than necessary, and be clear enough not to chill lawful protest.

Highway obstruction is not automatically a civil public nuisance. Public nuisance is fact- and degree-sensitive and a private claimant must prove direct, substantial special damage. A private right of access to a highway remains subject to public rights. Drone flight is trespass only where it enters airspace needed for ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. Harassment requires objectively oppressive and unacceptable conduct.

The claim concerned protests against the Claimants’ animal-research businesses at the Wyton Site and, to a lesser extent, the B&K Site. The Claimants pursued claims against John Curtin and categories of “Persons Unknown” for trespass, interference with access to the highway, public nuisance, harassment and drone trespass.

The evidence was heard at trial in 2023. The final hearing was adjourned pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2024] AC 983. The central issues were the liability of Mr Curtin for identified incidents and whether a final or contra mundum injunction should restrain future protest activity by unknown persons.

Disposition. The First Claimant obtained judgment against Mr Curtin for physical trespass at the Wyton Site and interference with its common-law right of access to and from the public highway. The claims for public nuisance, harassment and drone trespass were dismissed. The remaining Claimants’ claims were dismissed.

1. Liability. Trespass to land is strict liability, actionable without damage, although permission may limit the scope of lawful entry. The common-law right of access to the highway is subject to the rights of highway users. Direct obstruction of vehicles entering or leaving the site infringed that right. The short-lived obstructions did not amount to public nuisance because they affected only particular individuals and not the public generally. Under the Protection from Harassment Act, the conduct, viewed individually and cumulatively, did not cross the objective threshold of oppressive and unacceptable behaviour. The separate requirement of an intention to persuade persons to leave or cease dealing with the Claimants was also not proved.
2. Drone use. Applying Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479, the drone flown by Mr Curtin at about 50 metres was not shown to interfere with the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. The real complaint concerned filming, for which trespass was not the appropriate cause of action. No harassment or credible future threat of harassment was established.
3. Injunction against Mr Curtin. The injunction was limited to physical trespass and direct and deliberate obstruction of vehicles entering or leaving the site. It did not continue the Exclusion Zone, and did not prohibit merely approaching, slowing vehicles, crossing the access road, or inviting drivers to stop and receive protest material.
4. Contra mundum relief. Applying the framework in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2024] AC 983, the Court found a compelling need for protection against future trespass and direct, deliberate obstruction. A two-year contra mundum injunction was granted for those acts only. The drone and public-nuisance claims did not satisfy the compelling-need and just-and-convenient requirements. The order required proof of notice and continued the requirement to obtain permission before bringing contempt proceedings.
5. Contempt. Mr Curtin’s admitted breach of the interim injunction involved low culpability and low harm. A fine of £100 was reduced to £90 for his admission.

The claim was determined at first instance after a trial and further hearings following the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolverhampton City Council & others v London Gypsies and Travellers & others [2024] AC 983. The judgment also resolved the outstanding contempt application against Mr Curtin.