Global Freedom of Expression

Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (t/a Amazing Animals) and another v Captive Animals Protection Society

In Progress Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Audio / Visual Broadcasting, Electronic / Internet-based Communication, Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    May 20, 2016
  • Outcome
    Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Injunction or Order Denied/Vacated
  • Case Number
    [2016] EWHC 1370
  • Region & Country
    United Kingdom, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Public Interest, Whistleblowing

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Court denied Heythrop’s request for an interim injunction prohibiting CAPS from publishing photographs and videos taken by a CAPS “investigator” during a visit to Heythrop zoological park. The videos and photographs, accompanied by articles, alleged that Heythrop exploited and treated animals inhumanely.  The Court found that the publications were of a clearly journalistic nature, and thus to receive the injunction, Heythrop had to show that it would succeed at receiving a permanent injunction, which the Court reasoned it would not receive.


Heythrop Zoological Gardens Limited (“Heythrop”) is a corporation that provides animals to the film and television industry and the Captive Animals Prevention Society (“CAPS”) is an organization that fights against the exploitation of animals.

Heythrop is generally closed to the public except for certain open days. On one of these open days a member of CAPS visited Heythrop and took videos and photos of the animals there. These videos and photographs were posted on CAPS’s website with accompanying articles explaining the exploitation of animals and the inhumane conditions that these animals suffered.

Heythrop then sought an interim injunction to prohibit CAPS from posting the film and videos online arguing breach of contract, breach of confidence, and breach of non-property performance rights. The breach of contract cause was brought on the basis of a Code of Conduct listed on each ticket to the park, The claim for performer’s rights was brought under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

CAPS argued this was simply a case of defamation and issuing an interim injunction would be tantamount to a prior restraint on speech. Further, CAPS argued that the Court must consider the important factor of freedom of speech, freedom of journalism, and the importance of the public interest. Heythrop countered that this case is more about infringement on Heythrop’s rights than defamation of character. To this end, Heythrop argued that the proper test for whether the Court should issue the injunction should be whether there is an arguable case, whether there is unquantifiable harm, and what is the balance of convenience and justice (the American Cyanamid test).

The Court denied the interim injunction.

Decision Overview

The Court briefly analyzed each of the claims brought by the parties and concluded that there was an arguable case on either side. The Court then went on to analyze the application for an interim injunction, the core issue involving freedom of speech in this case.

The Court, analyzing current case law, found that the correct approach for it to make a determination on this interim injunction was to identify “the nature of the rights relied on by the claimant in support of its claim for an interim injunction and carrying out the required balancing exercise.” [para. 56]

In this case, the balance of rights involved measuring the rights of CAPS versus the rights of Heythrop. On the one hand, the Court noted Heythrop had property and economic rights at stake in this case. Clearly, Heythrop who is primarily engaged in the training and hiring-out of its animals has a commercial interest in stopping the publication of these films and photographs. However, CAPS is a campaigning organization that carries out an important journalistic function. Although CAPS is not a newspaper it still serves this journalistic purpose in the way that it chooses to impart knowledge. The photographs help to illustrate the articles posted by CAPS, which try and expose the practices at Heythrop.

The Court noted the publications involved in this case were journalistic in nature and the key justification Heythrop produced for seeking the injunction was injury to reputation (even though Heythrop puts forward claims of violations of economic rights). Specifically, “the purpose and basis of the interim relief is the protection of harm to reputation of the claimant caused by publications of a clearly journalistic nature.” [para. 62] Therefore, the Court found that to survive an interim injunction, the claimant must prove that success at trial was “more likely than not.” [para. 63]

The majority of the images posted on the website were images the public could view themselves if they chose to visit Heythrop on one of the days it was open for public visits (as the investigators for CAPS did). Therefore, these images were not competing with Heythrop’s business. Even the images referred to by the Court as “whistle-blower” images did not defeat the standard for an interim injunction as there was a public interest defense. The Court also found a potential fair dealing defense for the breach of confidence claim. Therefore, the Court found that there was not a sufficient likelihood that Heythrop would be able to obtain a final injunction at the conclusion of this case, and the Court refused to issue the interim injunction.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This case expands expression by refusing to grant Heythrop’s interim injunction to remove pictures on CAPS website taken at Heythrop’s facility exposing alleged cruelty to its animals. The Court in this case found that the journalistic rights of CAPS outweighed Heythrop’s economic interests.

This case is also influential because it notes that an organization does not have to be a newspaper or journalist perse in order to serve a journalistic function.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.K., American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] AC 396
  • U.K., Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269
  • U.K., Woodward v. Hutchins, 1977 (1) WLR 760
  • U.K., Cream Holdings Ltd. v. Banerjee, [2004] 4 All ER 617 (HL)
  • U.K., Service Corporation v. Channel 4 [1999] EMLR 83
  • U.K., Tillery Valley [2004] EWHC 1075 (Ch.)
  • U.K., Terry v Persons Unknown, [2010] EWHC 119 (QB)
  • U.K., Viagogo v. Myles [2012] EWHC 433 (Ch.)
  • U.K., PJS v. Newsgroup Corporation [2016] UKSC 26
  • U.K., Interflora v. Marks and Spencer, [2014] EWHC 4168 (Ch.)
  • U.K., Long Beach Limited, Denis Christel Sassou Nguesso v Global Witness Limited [2007] EWHC 1980 (QB)
  • U.K., Campbell v. MGN Ltd, [2004] UKHL 22

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback