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 long and sustained campaign of harassment by the defendant organisation and its associates. The court would grant an injunction. An order establishing an exclusion zone however should only be made where an injunction had been tried and had failed. The powers inherent in the police had been inadequate to prevent the harassment, and it was correct to invoke the 1997 Act. Injunctive relief should be no wider than was shown to be necessary.
 EWHC 372 (QB), Times 07-Apr-2005
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 3, Supreme Courts Act 1981 37(1)
England and Wales
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – Millman v Ellis CA 1996
The defendant had sold part of his land to the claimant. A right of way was granted over a lane. The purchaser asserted that he had the use of a lay-by on the lane which would otherwise be dangerous. The vendor said the plan did not include a right . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.223863