Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors v Avery & Ors (Representing Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ('Shac'), Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, June 26, 2009, [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB)
Linked as:
Extract
Smithkline Beecham Plc & Ors v Avery & Ors (Representing Stop Huntingdon Cruelty ('Shac'), Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, June 26, 2009, [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB)
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB)Case No: HX07X01122IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 26/06/2009Before :MR JUSTICE JACK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Mr Paul Girolami QC & Mr Jonathan Allcock (instructed by Lawrence Graham LLP) for the ClaimantsMichael Turner QC & Ms Stephanie Harrison (instructed by Hickman & Rose) for the 2nd DefendantMr Rajeev Thacker (instructed by Harrison Bunday) for the 3rd DefendantHearing dates: 3 - 5 and 8-10 June 2009- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentMr Justice Jack : 1. In this action the GlaxoSmithKline group of pharmaceutical companies seek an injunction to restrain unlawful conduct by way of trespass and harassment by animal rights activists done with the aim of preventing the use of animals in medical research. The undisputed facts show clearly the need for such an order, and in the opening written submissions on behalf of the second defendant it is said `It is not part of Mr Webb's case that no injunctive relief at all should be granted in this case. ... It is fully acknowledged that an order is inevitable.' A similar acceptance appeared in those on behalf of the third defendant. The issues are as to against whom the order should be made; who, pursuant to CPR 19.6, should represent those against whom it is made; and as to the terms of any order. There is also an issue as to whether the corporate claimants can claim an order under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to protect their employees and others.2. The proceedings were begun on 4 April 2007 when an interim order was made without notice by Beatson J. That order was continued with some modification on 27 April 2007 by Teare J.: [2007] EWHC 948 (QB). The action proceeded, and after various delays caused in large part by the criminal proceedings against various leading activists the trial began before me on 3 June 2009. The relief sought is a final order largely in the same form as that obtained in April 2007.3. The claimants are eleven companies in the GlaxoSmithKline Group of pharmaceutical companies together with Mr William Trundley who sues on behalf of `the Protected Persons'. The Protected Persons are defined as the directors, employees, agents, subcontractors and suppliers of all members of the GSK Group together with the families, servants and agents of such persons and lawful visitors to the places of business or homes of the claimants or Protected Persons already listed. 4. There are three defendants. The first defendant, Mr Greg Avery, was sued as representing, with the third defendant, Dr Max Gastone, `all persons acting as members, participants or supporters or in the name of the unincorporated association known as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (``SHAC'')'. Dr Gastone was added as a defendant to represent SHAC following the arrest and remand in custody of Mr Avery in May 2007. The second defendant is Mr Robin Webb who was sued as representing `all persons acting as members, participants or supporters or in the name of the unincorporated association known as the Animal Liberation Front...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
