[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 144 (10 February 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/144.html Cite as: [2005] EWCA Civ 144

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE GRIGSON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		10th February 2005

1. LORD JUSTICE WARD: This is an application brought by an incorporated group called SPEAK Campaigns. They were the fourth of ten defendants in proceedings commenced by the University of Oxford, as the first claimant, by Mr Holmes, the Registrar of the university, for and on behalf of the employees and the members of the university as the second claimant, and thirdly by Jennifer Gregory, for and on behalf of the employees and shareholders of the contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of the university. The latter two claimants are representatives and proceed pursuant to CPR 19.6.
2. The University of Oxford is intent upon building a new laboratory at which certain experiments with animals will take place. All of the defendants, some individuals and others various protest groups, have fundamental objections to the use of animals in research. There is a well-known campaign mounted to protest against it. Some of the protest is lawful. Some of the protest is unlawful with acts of trespass being committed. More insidiously some of the protest is unlawful, in that threats (veiled and explicit) have been uttered against those connected, and sometimes only remotely connected, with the work. Sometimes there has been blatant criminal damage. The university and the other claimants therefore sought and obtained injunctions, granted by Grigson J on 10th November, in effect restraining the defendants from acts of harassment and so forth.
3. On behalf of the fourth defendant application is made for permission to appeal. Permission is sought very broadly on the following grounds, namely first that:

"Relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ... is not available for large groups of unnamed persons represented by a single Claimant bringing a representative action under CPR 19.6."

Secondly, it is submitted that relief under the Act is not available against unincorporated associations sued on behalf of thousands of unnamed persons pursuant to the same rule. Thirdly, that relief under the Act is not available to prevent political protest and public demonstration outside the premises of the claimants.

4. The applicant does not attend this morning, having indicated its readiness for me to deal with the matter on paper. Mr Lawson-Cruttenden does appear, as a matter of courtesy and of interest, on behalf of the claimants.
5. I consider that I must accept for the moment that there is possibly a good argument that can be advanced for the grant of permission because this is not the first time this sort of matter has been before the court. The University of Cambridge suffered its share of disruption when Huntingdon Life Sciences had their difficulties with protesters. They took injunction proceedings against a number of organisations, some probably represented here or some with similar interests as the defendants in this case. On that occasion similar arguments were advanced for granting permission to appeal against the order made by Gibbs J in that case. Chadwick LJ was satisfied:

"... that the issues raised by the grounds ... are of such general importance that they merit consideration by this Court."

Although permission was granted, that appeal was never prosecuted to finality.

6. I fully understand the point of general importance which may need to be considered by this court. I am not totally persuaded by any means that there is a real prospect of success. I think what should happen, therefore, is that I adjourn this application for permission to appeal for it to be listed on notice to the respondents, with the appeal to follow if permission is granted (as probably I suppose it will be in the light of the views expressed by Chadwick LJ in the other case). But the applicant must renew his application.
7. In view of the potential public interest, I shall ask the office to refer these papers to the Attorney-General for his consideration, inviting him, if he thinks it appropriate (and that is entirely a matter for him), to appear as a friend of the court to give assistance on this question. The applicants are at present unrepresented and these arguments will be better addressed if there is a friend of the court to give assistance. The other reason why I invite the Attorney-General's attention to these papers is because I understand there is a bill passing through Parliament considering how to cope with this kind of protest, and it may be (I express no concluded view about this at all) that the impact of these protests on the civil law needs to be as urgently considered as the impact on the criminal law. For that reason, the papers should go to the Attorney-General.
8. I will say that one day should be said aside for the hearing of this renewed application and the costs will be reserved.

ORDER: Application for permission to appeal adjourned to an on-notice application, with the appeal to follow if permission to appeal is granted; the Civil Appeals Office to refer these papers to the Attorney-General for his consideration, inviting him, if he thinks it appropriate, to appear as a friend of the court to give assistance on this case; time estimate for the appeal of one day; costs reserved.

(Order not part of approved judgment)