Queen Mary University of London v LSY & Ors [2024] EWHC 2386 (Ch) (20 September 2024)

Queen Mary University of London v LSY & Ors [2024] EWHC 2386 (Ch) (20 September 2024)

The University, as registered proprietor, was entitled to possession of its land. The protesters' occupation for protest purposes was not authorised under the University's Code of Practice on Free Speech, and any implied licence was withdrawn by clear communications. There was no real prospect of a defence to the possession claim, either as a matter of property law or by invocation of public law or ECHR rights. The making of a possession order was prescribed by law, necessary for the protection of the University's rights, and proportionate. No less intrusive measure would have achieved the legitimate aim. The University's actions were not discriminatory. Accordingly, a summary possession...

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2386 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Queen Mary University of London; 1st Defendant: LSY; 2nd Defendant: MBC; 3rd Defendant: Persons Unknown (in occupation of Queen Mary University of London); 4th Defendant: FDE; 5th Defendant: JST
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Possession Claim (cpr Part 55) / Summary Judgment Following Adjourned Hearing; Final Order
Outcome
Possession order granted in favour of the University against remaining defendants (persons unknown, FDE, JST); claim settled by consent with 1st and 2nd Defendants; anonymity orders continued for all individual defendants.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Trespass, Freedom of Speech, Right to Protest, University Governance, Summary Judgment, Anonymity Orders, ECHR Articles 9, 10, 11, 14, Education (no 2) Act 1986 S.43, Proportionality, Code of Practice on Free Speech
Property Law Public Law Human Rights Law Education Law Possession Proceedings Trespass Freedom of Speech Right to Protest +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Queen Mary University of London

Claimant

LSY

1st Defendant

MBC

2nd Defendant

Persons Unknown (in occupation of Queen Mary University of London)

3rd Defendant

FDE

4th Defendant

JST

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Claim (cpr Part 55) / Summary Judgment Following Adjourned Hearing; Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University is entitled to a possession order against student protesters and persons unknown occupying its land
  2. 2 Whether the protesters had any licence or permission to occupy the land for protest
  3. 3 Whether the University's actions breached public law obligations or the protesters' ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The University, as registered proprietor, was entitled to possession of its land. The protesters' occupation for protest purposes was not authorised under the University's Code of Practice on Free Speech, and any implied licence was withdrawn by clear communications. There was no real prospect of a defence to the possession claim, either as a matter of property law or by invocation of public law or ECHR rights. The making of a possession order was prescribed by law, necessary for the protection of the University's rights, and proportionate. No less intrusive measure would have achieved the legitimate aim. The University's actions were not discriminatory. Accordingly, a summary possession...

Court Disposition

Possession order granted in favour of the University against remaining defendants (persons unknown, FDE, JST); claim settled by consent with 1st and 2nd Defendants; anonymity orders continued for all individual defendants.

Orders

  • Possession order for the Mile End campus (excluding leased areas) against persons unknown, FDE, JST
  • Anonymity orders for 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Defendants