A landowner is entitled to seek a precautionary injunction to restrain ongoing acts of trespass on its land.
The High Court has considered the necessary grounds in University of London v Harvie-Clark and others [2024] EWHC 2895 (Ch).
In May 2024, a group of protestors established an encampment on land belonging to the university as part of a protest under the slogan “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions”, directed at the School of Oriental and African Studies. While SOAS was a different legal entity to the claimant, the protests largely took place on the claimant’s land and the claimant believed further protests would take place.
The original encampment dispersed shortly after a possession order was made but some protesters relocated and established a second encampment on other land owned by the university not subject to the possession order. This was dispersed by enforcement agents instructed by the university and the protestors established a third encampment on land owned by the local authority which they used as a base to conduct further protests on the university’s land.
The university had adopted a code to allow planned protests to take place on its land but objected to uncontrolled protests which disrupted users of the site located on its land and gave rise to health and safety concerns. It sought a precautionary injunction restraining the defendants from, inter alia, entering the land without first complying with its code and visitor regulations; obstructing or interfering with access to or from the land; and establishing a further encampment on the land.
The judge, following the approach set out in Valero Energy v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB) decided that:
- the claimant’s cause of action was trespass. Its title to the land was clear and it was entitled to control occupation in accordance with its code and visitor regulations.
- it had given full and frank disclosure by putting forward potential defences which might be available to the defendant. None could succeed based on property rights and interferences with rights to freedom of speech and assembly are justified if they are prescribed by law and necessary in the proportionate pursuit of prescribed legitimate aims.
- The nature and number of the encampments and details of incidents of disruptive trespassory protests was sufficient evidence. The defendants’ social media indicated their intention to continue their protest activity.
There was a real risk that, if the injunction sought was not granted, there would be further unauthorised and unplanned invasions of the University’s land, giving rise to cost, reputational damage and damage to the educational needs of its students.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
