The claimant company was licensed to carry out scientific research, including research on live animals. The defendant association and its members opposed such work as cruel. The claimant had obtained an injunction to restrain the defendants harrassing protests. They now sought additional orders to protect staff members.
Held: The order had provided a structure within which the defendants had operated lawfully. The order could be widened and modified to match experience, but not so as to include a claim for damages.
[2007] EWHC 522 (QB)
Bailii
Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, Civil Procedure Rules 19(6), Protection from Harassment Act 1997 3
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.250709