Key Facts
- •Students (and possibly others) set up a protest camp on the University of Nottingham campus to oppose actions of the Israeli Defence Force.
- •River Butterworth, a student and postgraduate officer, is the only defendant participating in the proceedings.
- •The University seeks a summary possession order under Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- •Butterworth argues the University's actions are unlawful due to breaches of statute, policy, and human rights.
- •The camp lacked prior permission and allegedly caused disruption.
- •The University's free speech policy and code of practice were central to the arguments.
Legal Principles
Test for granting a summary possession order: (a) no real prospect of successful defence, and (b) no other compelling reason for trial.
Part 55, Civil Procedure Rules; Birmingham at [3]-[7]
If decisions to terminate a licence and seek possession were unlawful, the defendant has a real prospect of a successful defence.
Birmingham at [10]
University's free speech policy does not require engagement with protestors who fail to comply with the University's code of practice.
University's free speech policy, paragraph 15; Code of Practice, paragraph 16
Section 43 of the 1986 Act requires universities to take steps to ensure freedom of speech, but does not prevent action against trespassers who do not comply with university policy.
Section 43 of the 1986 Act, paragraph 33
A possession order is justified if interference with Convention rights (Articles 10 and 11 ECHR) is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is proportionate.
Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR; Birmingham at [58]-[75]
Outcomes
Summary possession order granted to the University.
Butterworth failed to demonstrate a real prospect of successfully defending the claim on public law or human rights grounds. The University's actions were deemed proportionate and justified.