The University of London v Abel Harvie-Clark & Ors

The University of London v Abel Harvie-Clark & Ors

The claimant is entitled to an interim precautionary injunction as the evidence establishes a serious issue to be tried, a realistic prospect of success, and no realistic defence based on property rights or Convention rights. The injunction terms are proportionate, clearly defined, and do not prevent lawful protest under the claimant's regulations. Damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favours the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: The University of London; Defendant: Abel Harvie-Clark; Defendant: Tara Mann; Defendant: Haya Adam; Defendant: Persons Unknown (protesters entering/remain); Defendant: Persons Unknown (protesters obstructing/interfering); Defendant: Persons Unknown (protesters erecting structures)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (interim Injunction Application) / Interim Application for Precautionary Injunction
Outcome
Interim precautionary injunction granted
Legal Topics
Trespass, Precautionary Injunctions, Protest Law, Persons Unknown, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Trespass Precautionary Injunctions Protest Law Persons Unknown Freedom of Expression +1 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The University of London

Claimant

Abel Harvie-Clark

Defendant

Tara Mann

Defendant

Haya Adam

Defendant

Persons Unknown (protesters entering/remain)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (protesters obstructing/interfering)

Defendant

Persons Unknown (protesters erecting structures)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (interim Injunction Application) / Interim Application for Precautionary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim precautionary injunction restraining trespass and protest activity on its land by named and unknown defendants
  2. 2 Whether the injunction terms are compatible with the defendants' rights to freedom of expression and assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the procedural and substantive requirements for an injunction against persons unknown are satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to an interim precautionary injunction as the evidence establishes a serious issue to be tried, a realistic prospect of success, and no realistic defence based on property rights or Convention rights. The injunction terms are proportionate, clearly defined, and do not prevent lawful protest under the claimant's regulations. Damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favours the claimant.

Court Disposition

Interim precautionary injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendants (named and persons unknown) are forbidden from entering, protesting, obstructing, or erecting structures on the claimant's land except in accordance with the claimant's Code and Visitor Regulations, pending determination of the final injunction application or for one year unless extended.
  • Directions given for further steps towards the hearing of the final injunction application.