Before granting a quia timet or anticipatory injunction against persons unknown the court must be satisfied that there is a sufficiently real and imminent risk of a tort being committed.
In University of Brighton v Persons Unknown Occupying Land [2023] EWHC 1485 (KB); [2023] PLSCS 101, the High Court has granted a final injunction because it was appropriate to do so notwithstanding that the claimant had recovered possession of the property in issue prior to the return date hearing of the interim injunction.
At around 3.30am on 25 May 2023 various Persons Unknown entered the Cockcroft Building on the Moulsecoomb Campus at the University of Brighton and broke into the claimant’s administrative offices on the 8th floor.
They subsequently barricaded themselves in, causing damage and preventing anyone else entering the premises.
They also accessed the roof of the building and displayed banners in support of their protest against the possibility of redundancies amongst staff at the university.
The protestors refused to vacate having been notified of the interim injunction but did do so following a fire alarm at the building.
The claimant recovered possession of the premises on 5 June 2023 so there was no need for a possession order.
However, the court was invited to make a final injunction to restrain and prevent future acts of trespass for a period of a year.
The defendants did not attend the hearing and so there was no defence to the claim but the court still needed to satisfy itself that it was appropriate to grant the relief sought.
The requirements for a quia timet injunction are: i) that there is a sufficiently real and imminent risk of a tort being committed; ii) it is impossible to name those likely to commit the tort unless restrained; iii) effective notice of the injunction can be given; iv) the injunction does not prevent lawful conduct; v) its terms are sufficiently clear to be understood and it has clear geographical and temporal limits (Joseph Boyd and another v Ineos Upstream Ltd and others [2019] EWCA Civ 515).
The claimant relied upon the continuing dispute about redundancies and past conduct of the defendants as well as their flagrant contempt for the court by refusing to vacate when served with the interim order.
The judge accepted that the risk of the protesters return to the executive floor of the claimant’s administrative building was sufficiently real and imminent, that the remaining tests in Ineos were satisfied and damages would not be an adequate remedy.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
