The defendant was an animal rights protester who had been accused under the Act of harassing the company and its employees.
Held: The act was intended to be used to protect individuals, and not companies. Two incidents were alleged, but no individual had been present at and could complain of harassment on both occasions. The Huntingdon case was not binding because the court had not heard argument from both sides. The employees were not such a closely knit group as to allow any treatment of them as a group. Following the second Huntingdon case, the Act was not to be used to seek to limit public demonstrations. As to the meaning of the word ‘person’ the legislative history of the provisions pointed against the word meaning a corporation; it was aimed at protecting specific and identifiable victims rather than groups or institutions.
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs
Times 08-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC 1380 (Admin)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 4(1) 5(2), Interpretation Act 1987
England and Wales
Citing:
Not Binding – Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited v Curtin; Watson; British Union for Abolition of Vivisection; Animal Liberation Front; Animal Rights Coalition and London Animal Action CA 15-Oct-1997
The various defendants were accused of protesting repeatedly at the activities of the claimants, who sought orders under the Act to stop their protests as harassment.
Held: The Act was misused by trying to use it outside the areas intended; . .
Cited – Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited v Curtin; Watson; British Union for Abolition of Vivisection; Animal Liberation Front; Animal Rights Coalition and London Animal Action CA 15-Oct-1997
The various defendants were accused of protesting repeatedly at the activities of the claimants, who sought orders under the Act to stop their protests as harassment.
Held: The Act was misused by trying to use it outside the areas intended; . .
Cited by:
Cited – Huntingdon Life Sciences Group Plc Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited, Brian Cass (for and on Behalf of the Employees of the First Claimant Pursuant To Cpr Part 19.6) v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty QBD 28-May-2004
The claimant companies conducted forms of medical research to which the respondents objected, and showed their objections by a wide variety of acts and threats which the claimants sought to have stopped. The defendants sought discharge of an interim . .
Cited – University of Oxford and others v Broughton and others QBD 10-Nov-2004
The claimants sought injunctions to protect themselves against the activities of animal rights protesters, including an order preventing them coming with a wide area around the village.
Held: The orders made were justified with the additional . .
Cited – Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.174254
