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; courts will interpret the Act restrictively. The plaintiffs had had difficulty identifying the perpetrators. Burris could have been used to obtain relief alternatively. The presumption in the Interpretation Act that ‘person’ includes ‘bodies corporate’ should prevail.
Judges:
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Thorpe
Citations:
Times 11-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2486
Statutes:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 7(2)
Jurisdiction:
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 by:
Not Binding – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142884
