Merlin Entertainments LPC & Ors v Cave
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE ELISABETH LAING
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved five claimants operating amusement parks who sought an interim injunction against Dr. Cave for allegedly harassing them via mass emails and websites criticizing safety issues at the amusement parks. The court reviewed the application concerning harassment claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, sections 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the rule in Bonnard v Perryman. Justice Laing ultimately dismissed the application, ruling that the Claimants did not demonstrate a serious case or likelihood of success and emphasized the importance of upholding freedom of expression rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE :
Introduction
The Claimants are four companies and one individual. The companies are involved in running amusement parks, including Chessington World of Adventures (“the Park”). I will refer to them as “Merlin” (first Claimant), “MAOL” (the second Claimant), “Chessington” (the third Claimant) and “Merlin Limited” (the fourth Claimant). Merlin owns several amusement parks. Merlin also owns Chessington, MAOL and Merlin Limited. The fifth Claimant is the Chief Executive Officer of Merlin Limited and a director and employee of Merlin.
This is an application by the Claimants for an interim injunction restraining the Defendant, Dr Cave, from (in short) sending mass emails and setting up websites in which he campaigns on the issue of safety in theme parks, and criticises the Claimants and other individuals (sometimes in intemperate and hurtful terms). As Mr Strauss QC (for Dr Cave) submitted, this case raises an important issue about the lawfulness of campaigns which (if their content is correct), are in the public interest. I accept that the issues which Dr Cave raises are matters of public interest. 1.6 m people visit the Park every year, and many more visit the other theme parks. The fact that the Claimants are private companies does not affect this conclusion.
As he submitted, campaigners may, in the course of their activities, annoy, irritate, and upset companies and individuals. To what extent should those activities be restrained by the civil courts, before the question whether they are justified has been decided? To what extent are they criminal offences? Dr Cave’s main tool has been the internet: websites and email. These are both very effective ways of getting a message across to many people. He admits that he has used a number of different email addresses, in order to circumvent spam filters. Are the Claimants, who contend that Dr Cave’s communications with the public and with their employees are defamatory, and in breach of confidence, entitled to stop him, before any trial, by relying on the statutory tort of harassment, or should they, instead, have to rely on their remedies for defamation and breach of confidence?
The Claimants’ claim is that Dr Cave is harassing the officers, agents and employees of the first four Claimants, and the fifth Claimant, Mr Varney. The Claimants say that they represent three classes of unnamed individuals: the officers, employees and agents of the corporate Claimants. Mr N