City of London v Samede & Ors [2012] EWHC 34 (QB) (18 January 2012)

City of London v Samede & Ors [2012] EWHC 34 (QB) (18 January 2012)

The indefinite occupation of highway and open land by the protest camp constitutes an unlawful obstruction and a material change of use without planning permission. While the protestors' rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR are engaged, the interference with those rights by granting possession and injunctions is justified, necessary, and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including worshippers, visitors, and the general public, and to prevent disorder and harm. The City's claim for possession and injunctive relief succeeds.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 34
Parties
Claimant: THE MAYOR, COMMONALITY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON; First Defendant (representative): TAMMY SAMEDE; Second Defendant: GEORGE BARDA; Third Defendant: DANIEL ASHMAN; Defendants (protestors): PERSONS UNKNOWN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Possession and Injunction Claim (civil) / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed. Possession and injunctions granted.
Legal Topics
Right to Protest, Obstruction of Highway, Possession of Land, Injunctions, Articles 9, 10, 11 ECHR, Planning Control, Proportionality, Freedom of Assembly
Public Law Human Rights Law Property Law Planning Law Right to Protest Obstruction of Highway Possession of Land Injunctions +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE MAYOR, COMMONALITY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON

Claimant

TAMMY SAMEDE

First Defendant (representative)

GEORGE BARDA

Second Defendant

DANIEL ASHMAN

Third Defendant

PERSONS UNKNOWN

Defendants (protestors)

Procedural Posture

Possession and Injunction Claim (civil) / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City is entitled to possession of the land occupied by the protest camp
  2. 2 Whether injunctions and declaratory relief should be granted to remove the camp
  3. 3 Whether interference with protestors' rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is lawful, necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The indefinite occupation of highway and open land by the protest camp constitutes an unlawful obstruction and a material change of use without planning permission. While the protestors' rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR are engaged, the interference with those rights by granting possession and injunctions is justified, necessary, and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including worshippers, visitors, and the general public, and to prevent disorder and harm. The City's claim for possession and injunctive relief succeeds.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Possession and injunctions granted.

Orders

  • Order for possession of Areas 1 and 3 (highway and open land) in favour of the City of London Corporation
  • Injunctions requiring removal of tents and structures from Areas 1, 2, and 3