MBR Acres Limited and Others -v- McGivern [2022] EWHC 2072 (QB), Nicklin J, 2 August 2022.
Though this case does not involve Gypsies or Travellers, it is a very useful and important case with regard to committal proceedings where it is said that an individual or individuals may have breached a (for example) planning Injunction.
MBR Acres breed animals for testing and have a site at Wyton, Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire. Outside the site is a protest camp where there are animal rights protestors. This is known as Camp Beagle. Separately an Injunction had been obtained against those on the camp and the 10th Defendant in that Injunction action was ‘Persons Unknown’. The Claimants had obtained an Alternative Service Order for service of the court papers on the 10th Defendant by placing the papers attached to the gate and next to the gate on the site. Also separately criminal proceedings had been taken against some of the protestors.
Ms McGivern is a criminal Solicitor and she represented one of the Defendants in the criminal proceedings. It was indicated to her that some of the other Defendants might wish to instruct her and, in order to find out more about Camp Beagle, Ms McGivern attended at the site on 4 May 2022. She had not seen the Injunction Order though she presumed that there might be some kind of Injunction in place. She parked her car in what turned out to be the exclusion zone under the Injunction which was around the gate of the site. Having talked to some of the protestors she then went up to the gate to talk to the security guard to see if he could tell her whether there was an Injunction and, if so, how she could find out about it. The security guard would not speak to her. While she was at the gate, two cars were leaving the site and she tried to engage with the occupants of the cars to see if they could provide her with some information. They did not provide her with any information either.
The Claimants then took committal proceedings against Ms McGivern on the basis that she had breached the Injunction. However Mr Justice Nicklin was not satisfied that the Claimants had provided evidence to show that Ms McGivern knew about the Injunction Order when she visited the site. He accepted Ms McGivern’s evidence. In fact, he was extremely critical of the Claimants taking this action against Ms McGivern which had caused her a great deal of stress and anxiety. He made an Order that, before the Claimants took any further contempt applications against people they allege were ‘Persons Unknown’ they should obtain the permission of the court first.
Please find the Judgment here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/2072.html