Burris v Azadami: CA 9 Aug 1995

References: Times 09-Aug-1995, [1995] 1WLR 1373
Coram: Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Ratio: The court addressed the principles upon which a Court will grant interlocutory injunctive relief in harassment cases.
Held: Both the High Court and the County Court had jurisdiction under the 1981 and 1984 Acts to grant interlocutory injunctions in wide terms to restrain conduct that was not in itself tortuous or otherwise unlawful, if such order was reasonably to be regarded as necessary for the protection of a plaintiff’s legitimate interest. The court has power to impose an exclusion zone when granting a non-molestation injunction restraining harassment of the victim by the defendant, provided no unnecessary restraint was placed on the defendant. It would not seem to me to be a valid objection to the making of an exclusion zone order that the conduct to be restrained is not in itself tortuous or otherwise unlawful, if such an order is reasonably regarded as necessary for the protection of a plaintiff’s legitimate interest’ and ‘Neither the statute nor authority in my view precludes the making of an ‘exclusion zone’ order. But that does not mean that such orders should be made at all readily, or without very good reason. There are two interests to be reconciled. One is that of the defendant. His liberty must be respected up to the point at which his conduct infringes, or threatens to infringe, the rights of the plaintiff. No restraint should be placed on him which is not judged to be necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has an interest which the court must be astute to protect. The rule of law requires that those whose rights are infringed should seek the aid of the court, and respect for the legal process can only suffer if those who need protection fail to get it. That, in part at least, is why disobedience to orders of the court has always earned severe punishment. Respect for the freedom of the aggressor should never lead the court to deny necessary protection to the victim.’
Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1), County Courts Act 1984 38
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hall and others v Save Newchurch Guinea Pigs (Campaign) and others QBD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 372 (QB), Times 07-Apr-05)
    The claimants ran a guinea pig farm. They and their neighbours applied for injunctions and an exclusion zone to keep away the defendants who campaigned against the breeding of animals for research.
    Held: The claimants had been subjected to a . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 19 March 2019
Ref: 78757