Defendant protesters destroying GM crops – Whether claimant having sufficient interest in land to maintain action for trespass – Whether defendants having arguable defence that actions were justified as necessary to protect third parties or in public interest – Application for summary judgment refused – Appeal allowed
The claimant company conducted business in plant biotechnology, which included research into, and the development of, genetically modified plants and crops (GM crops). It was licensed by the Department of the Environment to carry out research and development by conducting trials at various licensed sites. In about June 1998 a number of people founded GenetiX Snowball (GXS) with the object of campaigning against GM plants. The central method of advancing GXS’ campaign was to pull up the GM crops. The first such attack occurred in July 1998 at a farm in Shirburn, Oxfordshire. The first five defendants pulled up varying numbers of plants up to 100 each. The sixth defendant was present as media liaison officer.
The claimant issued proceedings against the first five defendants seeking injunctive relief. An interlocutory injunction was granted and was continued after an inter partes hearing. In September 1998 a second set of proceedings was issued suing the six defendants as representatives of GXS. In January 1999 the claimant sought summary judgment, seeking to make permanent the injunction on the ground that there was no defence to the claim. The application was dismissed and unconditional leave to defend was given to the defendants. The claimant appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
1. Although the claimant had hitherto based its case on interference with, or trespass to, goods, the facts pleaded could also give rise to an action for trespass to land, even in those cases, which were the majority, where the claimant did not own the land. For practical purposes, it made little difference whether the tort was in trespass to land or goods. However, trespass to land afforded the claimant somewhat wider protection since it was clear that, at common law, a person who was granted a right to grow crops by the owner of land could bring an action in trespass for damage to the crops: see Black v Daniels [1925] 1 KB 526 and Wellaway v Courtier [1918] 1 KB 200.
2. It was part of the jurisprudence of England and Wales that judgment should be given in favour of a claimant where there was no triable issue or other reason why there should be a trial, or where the defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The court should not hesitate where it could see that that was the position, particularly so where, having regard to the overriding objectives of the Rules of the Supreme Court, a case would be inordinately expensive and involve issues which were not justifiable, were it to proceed to trial. The defendants’ claim that their actions were justified as necessary to protect third parties, or in the public interest, was not capable of affording a defence in law. No amount of argument or development, by expert evidence or otherwise, would be to any avail. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to summary judgment and a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Michael Lyndon-Stanford QC and Simon Barker (instructed by Rowe & Maw) appeared for the claimant; Richard Gordon QC and Stephen Cragg (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) appeared for the first, second and sixth defendants. The third, fourth and fifth defendants appeared in person.
