Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The First Claimant is a UK-based company engaged in research for pharmaceutical, biotechnological, agro-chemical, veterinary, food, and chemical industries, with multiple premises in England and numerous employees. The action is brought on behalf of the First Claimant and the Novartis group worldwide under section 3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Second Claimants are two officers of the First Claimant representing its employees and worldwide group under CPR 19.6.

The First Defendant is an unincorporated association known as "SHAC" (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty), composed of individuals aiming to prevent the use of live animals in experimentation and to close the First Claimant's business. It is represented by two named individuals under CPR 19.6. The Second Defendants are unknown persons who intend or may intend to engage in protest activities amounting to unlawful harassment, sharing a common purpose but lacking precise identification.

There has been a long history of protest at the First Claimant's sites and occasionally at the homes of its officers or employees. While much protest has been lawful and non-violent, some has exceeded lawful limits, resulting in successful prosecutions. The Claimants have previously obtained injunctions preventing anticipated violence or harassment, including an injunction against the First Defendants since March 2010, amended in April 2014, and an interlocutory order restraining the Second Defendants from harassment granted in April 2014. Further interim orders were made in July 2014.

The Claimants now seek full injunctive relief against the Second Defendants without consolidating the first and second claims. Notice has been given to identifiable members of SHAC, with one representative currently imprisoned for conspiracy to blackmail and other offences related to unlawful interference with contractual relationships harming an animal research organisation.

Evidence from witness statements indicates a change in tactics by the Defendants towards more unlawful means, including threats of violence and intimidation against staff and premises. Various associated groups with differing aims and methods have been identified, some endorsing or engaging in unlawful acts ranging from sabotage to calls for violent action. The membership of these groups is unclear and amorphous, with overlapping participation and unknown numbers of supporters likely to engage in harassment or worse.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has the jurisdiction and power to grant injunctive relief against "persons unknown" who are alleged to be conducting or likely to conduct unlawful harassment against the Claimants.
2. Whether the terms of the proposed final injunction are just, convenient, and appropriate under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and relevant procedural rules.
3. Whether summary judgment is appropriate in this matter under CPR 24, given the absence of any real prospect of the Defendants successfully defending the claim.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized its express power under CPR 55.3(4) to grant injunctions against persons unknown, particularly where the defendants cannot be identified by name but are described sufficiently to define who is included and excluded. Applying the test from Bloomsbury Publishing, the court found no potential injustice to persons unknown who may be restrained, while identifying a significant risk of injustice to the Claimants if the injunction were not granted.

The court noted a history of lawful and unlawful protests, with evidence indicating a shift towards unlawful tactics by some within the groups associated with the Defendants. This included explicit and implicit threats of violence and intimidation, as well as associations with multiple fluid groups engaged in protest activities ranging from lawful to criminal.

Considering the overriding objective of certainty and finality, the court found it just and convenient under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant the final injunctive relief sought. The court also applied CPR 24 summary judgment criteria, determining that the Defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that there was no compelling reason for a trial.

The inclusion of a penal notice was deemed appropriate and necessary to give effect to the order, consistent with prior interlocutory orders. The court allowed the parties permission to apply for consequential orders or directions as needed.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the injunctive relief sought by the Claimants by way of a final order.

The effect of this decision is to impose a legally binding injunction against the Second Defendants, described as persons unknown, restraining them from engaging in conduct amounting to harassment of the Claimants and their protected persons. The order includes a penal notice, reinforcing its enforceability. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles regarding injunctions against persons unknown and summary judgment. The decision directly protects the Claimants from anticipated unlawful protest and harassment without the need for a trial.