Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE MCGOWAN
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the UK-based First Claimant seeking injunctive relief against SHAC and 'persons unknown' protesting its operations. Protests have ranged from lawful to unlawful, with convictions for harassment and blackmail. The court granted final injunctive relief, citing ongoing threats and evidence of potential unlawful activities.
Mrs Justice McGowan :
Introduction
The First Claimant in this case is a company based in the UK. It has a number of premises in England and a large number of employees. Its business involves conducting research for the purposes of the pharmaceutical, biotechnological, agro-chemical, veterinary, food and chemical industries. It also brings this action on behalf of the Novartis group worldwide, pursuant to s. 3A Protection from Harassment Act 1997 . The Second Claimants are Andrew Grantham, chief security officer for the First Claimant, and Nicola Maxted, solicitor for the First Claimant, who act on behalf of all the officers and employees of the First Claimant and the worldwide group in a representative capacity under CPR 19.6 .
The First Defendant is an unincorporated association; a group of people who share the common aim of preventing the use of live animals in experimentation and seeking, to that end, the closure of the First Claimant’s business. The umbrella group is known as “SHAC”; Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and it is represented under CPR 19.6 by two named individuals, Dr Max Gastone and Debbie Vincent. The Second Defendants are people who currently intend, or who are likely to embark upon, a course of protest amounting to, at the least, unlawful harassment. They have a common purpose but not a common form and are incapable of being identified or described with any precision.
Background
There has been a long history of protest at sites occupied by the First Claimant for the purposes of their business activities and on occasion at the home addresses of its officers or employees. Much of that protest has been lawful and whatever the inconvenience created it has not caused physical injury to any individual, intimidation to a criminal level or damage to property. On other occasions the protest has gone beyond the limit of what is lawful and in some cases to the point where successful prosecutions have been brought.
The Claimants have, on many occasions, sought and obtained injunctions preventing anticipated acts of violence against individuals or their property. The current position is:
The First Defendants are, and continue to be bound by an injunction made by HHJ Seymour QC on 24 March 2010, in proceedings known as Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK & another v SHAC & others, claim number HQ06X03887, as amended by Phillips J on 14thApril 2014 (the first claim).
On 31 March 2014 in these proceedings, (the second claim), Spencer J gave the Claimant