Key Facts
- •The University of London (Claimant) sought an interim precautionary injunction against trespassers protesting on its land.
- •Protests were against SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), a separate legal entity, related to alleged support for Israeli military operations and student treatment.
- •Protests involved multiple encampments, relocating after previous possession orders.
- •The Claimant has a Code and Visitor Regulations for planned protests but objects to uncontrolled disruptions.
- •The injunction was sought against three named individuals and various unknown persons.
- •The Defendants argued the University's land was essentially public and that the University was singling them out.
- •The Defendants challenged the injunction on human rights grounds (freedom of speech and assembly).
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction to grant injunctions against persons unknown ('newcomer' injunctions)
Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2024] 2 WLR 45
Guidance on granting interim and final injunctions against persons unknown
Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB); Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] 1 WLR 2802; Multiplex Construction Europe Limited v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 239 (KB); High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB)
Substantive requirements for injunctions against persons unknown: cause of action, full and frank disclosure, sufficient evidence, no realistic defence, inadequate damages
Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB)
Human rights considerations: Articles 10(1) and 11(1) ECHR (freedom of speech and assembly) are qualified rights; Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (peaceful enjoyment of property)
Articles 10, 11 and Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Appleby v UK [2003] 37 EHRR 38; DPP v Cuciurean [2022] EWHC 736(Admin); Boyd v Ineos Upstream Ltd [2019] 4 WLR 100
Procedural requirements for injunctions against persons unknown: clear identification, clear wording, matching pleaded claim, defined boundaries, temporal boundaries, service, provision for setting aside, review
HS2 Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB)
Balance of convenience in granting injunctions
DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23; City of London Corp v Samede [2012] PTSR 1624
Outcomes
Interim precautionary injunction granted
The Claimant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success on the trespass claim, the lack of adequate alternative remedies, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court considered and dismissed human rights arguments.
Costs reserved
The matter of costs will be determined at the final hearing, considering the unrepresented nature of the named Defendants and the circumstances of the case.