The Office Group Properties Limited & Anor v Persons Unknown

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 1438 (KB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION Case No: KB-2025-001908 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 12/06/2025 Before : MR JUSTICE SHELDON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : (1) THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED (2) FORA OPERATIONS LIMITED - and - PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CLAIMANTS ENTER OR REMAIN ON THE PREMISES KNOWN AS TINTAGEL HOUSE, 92 ALBERT EMBANKMENT, LONDON SE1 7TY -and- GOOD LAW PROJECT LIMITED Claimants Defendants Intervenor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Natalie Pratt (instructed by Mishcon De Reya) for the Claimants Mr Adam Wagner KC, Ms Shanthi Sivakumaran (instructed by ITN Solicitors) for the Intervenor The Defendants were not represented and did not appear Hearing date: 3 June 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 12 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives. ............................. MR JUSTICE SHELDON Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN Mr Justice Sheldon: 1. 2. The Office Group Properties Limited and Fora Operations Limited (collectively “the Claimants”) hold the leasehold title to Tintagel House, 92 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TY. Tintagel House is a commercial premises, with 92,769 square feet of office space over 10 floors. It has many occupiers, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission (“the EHRC”), which utilises 16 out of the 1,000 desks at the premises. For 5 days at the end of May 2025, Tintagel House was the location for protest against the EHRC by a number of individuals associated with a group known as “Trans Kids Deserve Better” who are opposed to the stance taken by the EHRC following the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. On 3 June 2025, I heard an application for an injunction made by the Claimants to restrain “persons unknown” from trespassing at Tintagel House. Following oral argument on behalf of the Claimants and Good Law Project, who I allowed to intervene in the proceedings1, I announced that I was refusing the injunction application. I said that I would give my reasons at a later date. These are my reasons. Factual Background 3. 4. On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in For Women Scotland Ltd. The Supreme Court decided that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the term “sex” referred to biological sex, and so “man” and “woman” referred respectively to a biological man and biological woman and not the sex that a person acquired pursuant to the issue of a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. On 25 April 2025, the EHRC issued an interim update on what it referred to as “the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment”2. The EHRC also announced that it would be consulting on an updated Code of Practice for Ministerial approval3. That consultation is due to close on 30 June 2025. On 26 May 2025, individuals associated with the group known as “Trans Kids Deserve Better”, without the permission of the Claimants, set up an encampment outside and in front of Tintagel House, within the area of land within the Claimants’ leasehold title, as part of a protest against the EHRC’s interim update. The main entrance to Tintagel House is glass fronted, opening out to a small raised and covered terraced area. Other protests by individuals associated with the group have taken place at the EHRC offices in Glasgow and Manchester. 1I allowed Good Law Project to intervene in this case. Good Law Project is a not-for-profit campaigning organisation which has been involved in various legal proceedings. I considered that they had a sufficient interest in the issues arising given that they are a non-profit organisation which has campaigned and litigated in the trans-rights space and for the rights of protesters. Further, this was a case in which the Defendants would not be represented and I considered that it would be of real assistance to the Court to hear the types of arguments that the Defendants would have made had they been present. This would meet the procedural fairness requirements for Persons Unknown, including newcomer, injunction applications identified by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies & Travellers [2023] UKSC 47. At [226], it was stated that reasonable steps should be taken to draw the application to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the injunction or with some other genuine and proper interest in the application so as to allow those persons “or those representing them or their interests” to make focused submissions with respect to the application. 2 An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC 3 The EHRC has the power to issue a code of practice in connection with any matter addressed by the Equality Act 2010: see section 14(1) of the Equality Act 2006. 5. 6. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN According to their website, “Trans Kids Deserve Better”, are a “UK action network by trans+ youth, for trans+ youth”. Under the heading of “our current mischief”, it is stated that: “Behind the scenes we’re constantly coming up with all sorts of fun ideas… Unfortunately we can’t tell you about all of them just yet (wouldn’t want the transphobes catching on too soon!) …” Individuals associated with “Trans Kids Deserve Better” appear to have been involved in various forms of protest in different locations and against different targets. The range of actions has included protestors climbing on a building occupied by the NHS at Wellington House, 133-135 Waterloo Road, London on 29 June 2024; releasing 6,000 crickets at the LGB Alliance’s annual conference at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Hall in Westminster in October 2024; a “die-in” carried out by 16 protestors at Victoria Station in November 2024; an encampment outside the constituency office of the Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in December 2024, and the throwing of eggs at Mr Streeting’s constituency office in April 2025; and a further protest involving spray paint being applied to the NHS premises at Wellington House in May 2025. 7. The protest encampment at Tintagel House was publicised by “Trans Kids Deserve Better” on their Instagram account. Some of the posts on that account were described in a witness statement of Zarah Driver, the Head of Legal for the Claimants: “(a) a pinned post appears at the top of the page, which was published on 26 May 2025. The caption is long, but includes the statement “[w]e are occupying the outside of Tintagel House (where EHRC offices are located) in order to protest against the harmful interim update on guidance which clearly sets out to honour the Supreme Court ruling surrounding what defines a woman”. The caption goes on to state “[w]e intend to stay overnight, sleeping at location. Any support that can be offered, both of time and resources, would be appreciated”. Three images accompany the post, two of which show five protestors stood behind the six bollards at the foot of the steps of the terrace, and behind a banner affixed to the bollards which reads “LISTEN TO US.”. Each of the five protestors is wearing a face covering, some are wearing head coverings, such that they cannot be identified . . . ; (b) a post published on 26 May 2025 (which appears to be either a re post, or a post as a collaborator), the caption to which reads “@transkidsdeservebetter are already back at it with the action!!! They are occupying the EHRC offices by Vauxhall in London and will be there for some days!...”. The post is accompanied by 11 photographs. Several of those images show protestors on the Premises, along with a green tent and several market-style bags and other encampment paraphernalia on the terrace area. The images also show that a Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN banner has been affixed across the six bollards at the foot of the steps of the terrace, which reads “LISTEN TO US.” . . . (c) a post published on 27 May 2025, the caption to which reads “COMMUNITY MEAL TONIGHT!! Come along to the EHRC offices in Vauxhall at 7pm tonight (Tuesday 27th May). Bring food, friends and good vibes”. The accompanying picture is of a home-made placard. . . ; (d) a post published on 27 May 2025, the caption to which sets out the “itinerary for the next few days”. That itinerary is stated as being a community meal at 7pm on Tuesday 27 May, a board games café at noon and an open mic night at 7pm on Wednesday 28 May, and an art club at noon on Thursday 29 May. Supporters are again encouraged to “[b]ring supplies, food and friends!!” . . . ; (e) a post published on 27 May 2025, the caption to which encourages supporters to attend the aforementioned board game café. The image posted has been taken on the terrace area at the front of the Tintagel House building on the Premises, and shows a fishing chair, bags and other encampment paraphernalia . . . ; trans reads “young (f) a post published on 27 May 2025 (which appears to be either a re-post, or a post as a collaborator), the caption to from which @transkidsdeservebetter occupy the EHRC’s London office to protest the flawed interim guidance, pressuring them to listen to the trans voice”. The post is accompanied by seven images, many of which show the encampment in situ on the terrace area. The images show that by now there are several protestors, banners, bags, chairs and other paraphernalia. The protestors are all wearing face coverings, many are wearing hoods. . . . ” activists It is clear from these posts that “Trans Kids Deserve Better” have been encouraging people to join the protest at Tintagel House so as to express their views about the EHRC’s interim guidance. 8. One consequence of the encampment and protest more generally has been to alter the security arrangements at Tintagel House. The usual security for the premises is by way of a remote monitoring system, with no regular physical security presence on the site. As a result of the protest, however, three security guards were present on site 24 hours a day. Mr Jake Thiede, Group Head of Operations for the Claimants, has stated that when he attended the premises on 27 May 2025, he noticed that the protestors had attached a banner across five of the six bollards that are located at the bottom of the steps at the main entrance to Tintagel House. As a result, the steps to the building and the main access and egress point were covered by the banner. He considered that this could pose a health and safety risk as the main entrance to the building also serves as a fire exit. Although he asked the protestors to move the banner elsewhere, his request Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN was refused. The police were called by Mr Thiede and the banner was moved to a different location. 9. Mr Thiede has explained that he asked the protestors to move outside of the premises to carry out their protest, but they refused. According to Mr Thiede, 10 protestors had remained overnight on 27-28 May 2025, and at 2:45 pm on 29 May 2025, approximately 30 protesters were present. Mr Thiede suggested that the protestors were using a green tent as a toilet facility, and were blocking one of the ramps used for disabled access to the building. Mr Thiede has also stated that he asked the protestors on 27 May 2025 for their names, but they refused. He says that the protestors appear to be under the age of 18, although a couple of adults were present. Mr Thiede also indicated that about half of the protestors were wearing masks. 10. The encampment and protest at Tintagel House came to an end on 30 May 2025. On the previous day, 29 May 2025, a post was published on the “Trans Kids Deserve Better” Instagram account . This included a statement which read: “WE’RE LEAVING TINTAGEL HOUSE! WHEN? 12PM (noon) on the 30th of May. There will be speeches from the young activists involved as we commemorate the end of our 5 day occupation, and we’d love for you to join us”. 11. Further material on the post stated the following: “WE'RE LEAVING TINTAGEL HOUSE!! JOIN US FOR OUR ENDING CEREMONY TOMORROW (FRIDAY THE 30TH OF MAY) AT 12PM TO CELEBRATE THE WORK DONE BY THE BRAVE KIDS INVOLVED IN THIS ACTION. The EHRC wants to push transgender people (especially transfemmes) out of public spaces. So we are here to show them that we will never let them force us to hide. The interim update regarding upcoming guidance has proved that the EHRC is not interested in the human rights of all, and instead wants to foster hatred and fear. We demand they listen to trans voices and show us respect. Trans men are men and trans women are women, and no guidance can chan[g]e this fact. Make some noise and show up for trans kids. Join us at Tintagel House, 92 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TY”. 12. On 30 May 2025, the Claimants lodged with the Court a claim form seeking an order of possession of the premises of Tintagel House, and injunctive relief to restrain trespassory protest, along with a completed form N244, draft orders and evidence in support of the claim and application. A process server sought to serve the unsealed clam form personally on individuals present at the encampment at mid-day. He made contact with the group of protesters and handed out packs of documents to those protestors who would accept them. He then posted a QR code, which would lead the Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN viewer to the relevant documents relating to the injunction application, on the windows of the building in view of the protestors. 13. On receipt from the Court of the sealed claim form, the process server returned to Tintagel House at 14:20 to find that all of the protestors had departed. The process server posted the documents on the windows to the building’s entrance so that they could be seen by protestors should they return. According to Zara Driver, the protestors left the premises at around 1:15 pm. They left several signs and placards affixed to the main entrance of the building, but otherwise left the premises tidy and free from rubbish. The Application for an injunction 14. 15. Although the Claimants were initially seeking possession of the premises at Tintagel House, as well as an injunction to restrain trespassing protesters, the application for possession was abandoned given that the protesters had already departed. The Claimants maintained their application for the injunction on the basis that they apprehended that the protesters would return. The proposed order was to restrain, until 23:00 on 31 January 2026, the Defendants from entering, occupying or remaining on all or any part of the premises at Tintagel House “for the purposes of protest”, and from erecting or placing any structure on the premises. The Defendants were described as “Persons unknown who without the consent of the Claimants enter or remain on the premises known as Tintagel House”. The draft order contained notification provisions so as to comply with the guidance set out by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies & Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 for injunctions against “persons unknown”. Submissions 16. At the hearing before me, Miss Natalie Pratt appeared on behalf of the Claimants. Mr Adam Wagner KC appeared with Shanthi Sivakumaran on behalf of Good Law Project. I am grateful for their focussed and clear submissions. 17. Miss Pratt contended that it was appropriate for the claim and application to be brought against a defined category of Persons Unknown only, as the Claimants had not been able to identify any person to enable them to be joined to the proceedings as a named defendant. Further that, even if (which was not accepted) the protestors’ rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) were engaged, the notification requirements for the claim and application for injunctive relief set out in section 12(2)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HRA”) had been satisfied as the Claimants had taken all reasonable steps to draw the application to the attention of Persons Unknown. 18. Miss Pratt acknowledged that the test for the grant of injunctive relief against Persons Unknown, including newcomers, was identified by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton, and that the overarching consideration was that the claimant must show a “compelling need” for the order: there had to be a “strong probability that a tort . . . is to be committed and that this will cause real harm”, and the threat must be “real and imminent”. Miss Pratt submitted that “imminent” meant not premature: see Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2 at [31(4)(d)], referring to Hooper v Rogers [1975] Ch 43, 50. 19. Miss Pratt referred the Court to the further guidance given by the Courts in protestor injunction cases that came after Wolverhampton; in particular, the decision of Ritchie J in Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 (KB) at [58], and the decision of Sir Anthony Mann in Jockey Club Racecourses Ltd v Kidby [2024] EWHC 1786 (Ch) at [18]. 20. Miss Pratt submitted that, in the present case, the procedural and substantive requirements as articulated by Ritchie J in Valero were satisfied. With respect to the substantive requirements, Miss Pratt contended that: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) there is a cause of action: trespass. Those occupying any protest encampment at Tintagel House do so without the permission of the Claimants and there was a reasonable apprehension that the trespass may evolve to include aggravating features; the Claimants have complied with their duty of full and frank disclosure throughout their evidence and submissions; there was sufficient evidence to prove the claim. The recent trespass had clearly occurred, and there was reasonable apprehension that further imminent acts of trespass will be committed by Persons Unknown. Whilst the encampment had ended, the campaign against the EHRC had not, and so there was a real and imminent threat that the protest would return to Tintagel House. In this regard, it was noted that (a) “Trans Kids Deserve Better” had shown an interest in protesting against the EHRC, and EHRC’s licence to occupy the premises at Tintagel House was not due to expire until January 2026; (b) the current protest had been triggered by the Interim Update. The final report was still awaited, and the consultation remains open until 30 June 2025. Further protests could occur between now and the close of the consultation in an attempt to effect change and inform the content of the final report and, if the final report is of a similar nature to the Interim Update, further protests will occur whether from “Trans Kids Deserve Better” or other trans-rights activist groups; (c) “Trans Kids Deserve Better” have expressly stated that they are “constantly coming up with all sorts of fun ideas”, but that they will not publicise them at this time, to retain the element of surprise; the further surprise could include a return to Tintagel House, given that this group had previously repeated its protests at the same venue: outside the constituency offices of Wes Streeting MP and at the offices of the NHS; and (d) “Trans Kids Deserve Better” had not said they would not come back to Tintagel House; there was no realistic defence. The Defendants do not have the Claimants’ permission to enter or remain on the Premises. Further, Articles 10 and 11 do not include a right to trespass especially where, as here, the premises had no quasi-public features; the trespass is itself an interference with the Claimants’ rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention (property rights) (“A1P1”); and the Defendants could exercise their Article 10 and 11 rights without trespassing at Tintagel House: they could seek to protest on the pavement in front of the building, or elsewhere (as they had already done); there is a compelling justification for the remedy sought, as no other remedy available to the Claimants will be effective to protect the Claimants’ rights. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN (vi) (vii) Specifically, security staff engaged by the Claimants should not forcibly remove, restrain or detain protestors (especially when the likely age of the protestors considered); damages are not an adequate remedy for the Claimants. A further trespass would cause disruption to the access to Tintagel House (including the obstruction of the wheelchair/disabled access ramp), and disruption to the business of the Claimants’ licensees including the EHRC, the majority of whose staff were not attending the Premises by reason of the recent protest; further protest would damage the brand perception of the Claimants: passers- by might view the protest as being against Tintagel House itself and not one of its many licensees; and should the protests escalate further, and include actions such as the climbing of the building and the release of insects, this will result in extra inconvenience, costs and risks to the Claimants and others. and additional cost to remedy those actions). In the alternative, if the Court was not prepared to grant injunctive relief at this stage, Miss Pratt submitted that the Court should stay the application and not bring the matter to an end. It would be proportionate and serve the overriding objective to stay the proceedings, so that if another protest did take place at Tintagel House if would only be necessary to provide a short witness statement about developments to revive the proceedings. For the intervenor, Good Law Project, Mr Wagner KC contended that the high threshold for an injunction in Persons Unknown cases identified by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton had not been satisfied: there was no evidence that the protests would be resumed at Tintagel House; there was no evidence that future tortious activity was being planned; and even if there was a strong probability of further torts being committed at some point, that was not imminent: that is, within a matter of days or weeks, not months. In any event, there was no evidence that any further torts would cause real harm. The encampment was entirely peaceful, there was no harassment or intimidation of lawful occupiers, no damage was done to the premises, there was no evidence that disabled persons were inconvenienced by the blocking of the ramp, and there was no evidence that any occupiers of the premises had been inconvenienced. Further, Mr Wagner KC submitted that the Defendants would in any event have a realistic defence to the claim as Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention were engaged. The Strasbourg case law did not shut out a claim under Articles 10 or 11. Those articles were engaged wherever an individual expressing them happened to be. It was for the Court to determine how those rights were balanced against the A1P1 rights of the Claimants. In the instant case, the target of the protests is a public authority, the EHRC, and there is a strong public interest in people being able to express their opinions to the EHRC. Further, whilst Tintagel Land is private land, the area where the encampment took place was readily accessible to the public. Further, the injunction would prevent any kind of protest activity on the premises, and not just an encampment: it would even prohibit the presentation of a petition to the EHRC, or other occupiers of the premises. 21. 22. 23. 24. With respect to the alternative suggestion proposed by Miss Pratt, Mr Wagner KC submitted that it would be inappropriate to grant a stay in this case. If the application Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN for the injunction failed, there would be nothing left of the claim. The proceedings should not be left hanging over the heads of potential protesters. Discussion The law 25. A Court may grant injunctive relief whenever it is considered “just and convenient” to do so: section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. With respect to injunctive relief against Persons Unknown, including newcomers, the relevant approach was articulated by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton. The key substantive test was set out at [218], where it was stated that the applicant: “must satisfy the court by full and detailed evidence that there is a compelling justification for the order sought . . . There must be a strong probability that a tort or breach of planning control or other aspect of public law is to be committed and that this will cause real harm. Further, the threat must be real and imminent.” 26. Further detail with respect to protestor injunctions was set out by Ritchie J in Valero and Sir Anthony Mann in Jockey Club. The substantive requirements set out in Valero are that: i) ii) iii) iv) v) there must be a cause of action; there must be full and frank disclosure by the claimant; there must be sufficient evidence to prove the claim (although this requirement appears to be crafted with the summary judgment application in mind); there must be no realistic defence; there must be a compelling justification for the remedy sought, and the court must take into account any balancing exercise that may be required if Article 10 and 11 rights are engaged; vi) damages must not be an adequate remedy. 27. The procedural requirements set out in Valero are that: i) ii) Persons Unknown must be clearly and plainly identified by reference to the tortious conduct to be prohibited, and clearly defined geographical boundaries (if possible); the prohibitions in the injunction must be set out in clear words and avoid legal terminology. Further, if any lawful conduct is sought to be prohibited, that must be made clear, and the Court must be satisfied that there is no other more proportionate way of protecting the claimant’s rights; iii) the prohibitions must match the torts claimed; Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN iv) v) vi) the prohibitions must be defined by clear geographic boundaries (if possible); the injunction should be temporally limited to that which is reasonably necessary to protect the claimant’s rights; the proceedings and any order made must be served by alternative means (referred to as ‘notification’ and not service in Wolverhampton). The court should have regard to section 12(2) of the HRA; vii) there must be a right to set aside or vary any order made; and viii) provision should be made for the review of the injunction in the future. These rules have been established because, as Ritchie J vividly put it in Valero at [57], a final injunction against Persons Unknown is “a nuclear option in civil law akin to a temporary piece of legislation affecting all citizens in England and Wales for the future so must be used only with due safeguards in place”. 28. As for the role that Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention play when the Court is considering an application for an injunction against trespass to private land, I will not address this in detail given my finding (as expressed below) that the evidential test for a grant of a Persons Unknown injunction is not made out in any event. Nevertheless, I should refer to what Warby LJ said in Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA 357, that: “9. The following general principles are well-settled, and uncontroversial on this appeal. (1) Peaceful protest falls within the scope of the fundamental rights of free speech and freedom of assembly guaranteed by Articles 10(1) and 11(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Interferences with those rights can only be justified if they are necessary in a democratic society and proportionate in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims specified in Articles 10(2) and 11(2). Authoritative statements on these topics can be found in Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 23 [43] (Laws LJ) and City of London v Samede [2012] EWCA Civ 160 [2012] 2 All ER 1039, reflecting the Strasbourg jurisprudence. (2) But the right to property is also a Convention right, protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol (‘A1P1’). In a democratic society, the protection of property rights is a legitimate aim, which may justify interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 10 and 11. Trespass is an interference with A1P1 rights, which in turn requires justification. In a democratic society, Articles 10 and 11 cannot normally justify a person in trespassing on land of which another has the right to possession, just because the defendant wishes to do so for the purposes of protest against government policy. Interference by Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN trespass will rarely be a necessary and proportionate way of pursuing the right to make such a protest.” 29. In DPP v Cuciuerean [2022] 3 WLR 446, in the context of a prosecution for the offence of aggravated trespass, contrary to section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Burnett) stated that: “45 We conclude that there is no basis in the Strasbourg jurisprudence to support the defendants proposition that the freedom of expression linked to the freedom of assembly and association includes a right to protest on privately owned land or upon publicly owned land from which the public are generally excluded. The Strasbourg court has not made any statement to that effect. Instead, it has consistently said that articles 10 and 11 do not bestow any freedom of forum in the specific context of interference with property rights (see Appleby at paras 47 and 52). There is no right of entry to private property or to any publicly owned property. The furthest that the Strasbourg court has been prepared to go is that where a bar on access to property has the effect of preventing any effective exercise of rights under articles 10 and 11,or of destroying the essence of those rights, then it would not exclude the possibility of a state being obliged to protect them by regulating property rights. 46 The approach taken by the Strasbourg court should not come as any surprise. Articles 10, 11 and A1P1 are all qualified rights. The Convention does not give priority to any one of those provisions. We would expect the Convention to be read as a whole and harmoniously. Articles 10 and 11 are subject to limitations or restrictions which are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. Those limitations and restrictions include the law of trespass, the object of which is to protect property rights in accordance with A1P1. On the other hand, property rights might have to yield to articles 10 and 11 if, for example, a law governing the exercise of those rights and use of land were to destroy the essence of the freedom to protest. That would be an extreme situation. . . .” In other words, it will be an unusual case where the Article 10 and 11 rights of those who trespass on private land will outweigh the A1P1 rights of the landowner. Application to the facts 30. I am satisfied that the Claimants have taken all reasonable steps to draw the application to the attention of Persons Unknown. The Claimants have emailed “Trans Kids Deserve Better” with the Claim Form and associated documents; they have also posted the relevant documentation at the Tintagel House premises in a way which would come to the attention of anyone who was considering a trespassory protest. Accordingly, both the common law procedural requirement identified in Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Wolverhampton and section 12(2) of the HRA (on the assumption that Article 10 rights are engaged) have been satisfied. Nevertheless, the application for an injunction clearly fails because the evidence presented by the Claimants does not come close to demonstrating a compelling justification for the order. Simply put, whilst there may be a possibility that a trespassory protest will take place at Tintagel House at some further point before the expiry of the EHRC’s licence, the evidence is far removed from establishing a strong probability that the protest will recur, let alone that it will recur imminently. I take the Supreme Court’s reference to “imminent” in Wolverhampton at [218] as being some time soon and not at any point before the expiry of the licence in January 2026 as Miss Pratt had submitted for the Claimants. Indeed, if (which is not the case) the evidence was that the protest will recur at the end of 2025, or early 2026, it would (using the language in Hooper v Rogers) be “premature” for the application to be brought now. The evidence before the Court is that the encampment that took place at Tintagel House came to an end in the early afternoon of Friday 30 May 2025. The ending of the encampment and the associated protest was clearly signposted by “Trans Kids Deserve Better” the day before, when they announced an invitation to a closing ceremony. The Instagram account of “Trans Kids Deserve Better” said that there would be “speeches from the young activists involved” to “commemorate the end of our 5 day occupation”. I cannot say why the encampment was brought to an end. Miss Pratt did not suggest that it was necessarily connected to the instigation of the proceedings. Indeed, it may have coincided with the ending of the half-term holidays for secondary schools. Whatever the reason, by the time that the sealed copies of the claim form and associated documents were ready to be served on protestors at Tintagel House, the encampment had been cleared up and the protestors had departed. There was no doubt that the protest at Tintagel House was over. The fact that the protest was over meant that there was no ongoing tort for the Court to consider restraining. It was necessary, therefore, for the Claimants to demonstrate the strong probability of a tort being committed in the very near future; that “Trans Kids Deserve Better” were highly likely to return to Tintagel House shortly to resume the protest or that they would encourage others to do so. It was not necessary for the Claimants to point to a statement from “Trans Kids Deserve Better” publicising a future protest at Tintagel House, as I accept that it is not always the case that protestors will publicise the location of their next protest and an element of surprise and innovation seems to be one of the hallmarks of the activities of “Trans Kids Deserve Better”. Nevertheless, there has to be cogent evidence that Tintagel House will be targeted again in the near future. This evidence was lacking. The Claimants’ case was built on the evidence that (i) “Trans Kids Deserve Better” have shown their interest in protesting against the EHRC at their offices including Tintagel House;(ii) the underlying cause of that protest may not go away during the period in which the EHRC has a licence at Tintagel House; (iii) “Trans Kids Deserve Better” have shown themselves as capable of returning to the same premises for the purposes of protest (at the NHS offices, and at the constituency office of Wes Streeting MP); and (iv) “Trans Kids Deserve Better” had not said that they would not be coming ack. At most this evidence suggests the possibility that the protest might Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. THE OFFICE GROUP PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS V PERSONS UNKNOWN 36. 37. 38. recur at some point in the next 7 months or so. This is simply insufficient to invoke the Court’s injunction powers. Of course, if the Claimants did obtain information about a recurrence of the protest at Tintagel House then the question of an injunction may arise again. It would not be appropriate, however, for the Court to accede to the Claimants’ alternative submission – that the application for an injunction be stayed, and could be restored if there was evidence that the protest could recur. The application for an injunction has failed. The Wolverhampton test has not been made out. There is no direct evidence that the protest may recur. At most, the evidence as to the possibility of a recurrence is indirect and circumstantial. As I have refused an injunction on the basis of the lack of evidence as to recurrence of the protest, it is not necessary for me to deal with the question as to whether “real harm” would be sustained by the Claimants if the protest was to be resumed. It is also not necessary for me to address the question as to whether the protestors could establish a real defence to the claim. Nor is it necessary for me to form any definitive views as to the precise wording of the Order. I note, however, that in the course of her submissions Miss Pratt indicated that the Claimants would agree to a change in the wording of the Order so that it was more narrowly tailored to fit the circumstances of the case. My provisional view is that this would have been appropriate as the draft Order lodged by the Claimants is not limited to protest against the EHRC, but is more general and could apply potentially to any form of protest against the many other licensees at Tintagel House. That form of relief would not have been suitable even if the Wolverhampton test was satisfied. Conclusion 39. For the reasons set out above, I dismiss this application for an injunction.