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 injunction.
Held: The case of Burris was instructive. New powers were available including ASBOs and under the Public Order Act 1986, but the order was continued until trial.
Mackay The Honourable Mr Justice Mackay
[2004] EWHC 1231 (QB)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 19.6, European Convention on Human Rights 10 11, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Public Order Act 1986 16
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Burris v Azadani CA 27-Jul-1995
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 . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski QBD 28-Jun-2002
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 . .
Cited – M. Michaels (Furriers) Limited v Askew and Others CA 25-Jun-1983
The court heard an appeal against injunctions granted in an animal rights protest context against named Defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of other members of an unincorporated association.
Held: Appeal denied. Care had to be taken . .
Cited by:
See Also – Huntingdon Life Sciences Group Plc and Another v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and others QBD 21-Oct-2005
The members of the anti-vivisection association appealed against an order for costs against the Association and its members at large.
Held: It was possible to make an order against an association and its un-named members. The association had a . .
See Also – Huntingdon Life Sciences Group Plc and Another v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) QBD 15-Mar-2007
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights, Torts – Other
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.197866