City of London v Samede & Ors

City of London v Samede & Ors

The City established its entitlement to possession and injunctive relief as the protest camp constituted a substantial, wilful obstruction of the highway, a material change of use without planning permission, and caused significant harm to the rights of others, including worshippers, local businesses, and the public. The interference with the defendants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 was justified, necessary, and proportionate in light of the pressing social need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, public order, and the environment. The orders sought were the least intrusive means to achieve these aims.

Parties
Claimant: THE MAYOR, COMMONALITY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON; Defendant: TAMMY SAMEDE; Defendant: GEORGE BARDA; Defendant: DANIEL ASHMAN; Defendant: PERSONS UNKNOWN (being persons taking part in a protest camp at St Paul’s Churchyard)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; orders for possession and injunctive relief granted.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Right to Protest, Obstruction of Highway, Possession Proceedings, Planning Enforcement, Proportionality, Public Nuisance
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Planning Law Public Order Law Freedom of Assembly Freedom of Expression Right to Protest +5 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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE MAYOR, COMMONALITY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON

Claimant

TAMMY SAMEDE

Defendant

GEORGE BARDA

Defendant

DANIEL ASHMAN

Defendant

PERSONS UNKNOWN (being persons taking part in a protest camp at St Paul’s Churchyard)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City is entitled to possession of highway and open land occupied by a protest camp
  2. 2 Whether injunctive and declaratory relief should be granted to require removal of the protest camp
  3. 3 Whether interference with the defendants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights is lawful, necessary, and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The City established its entitlement to possession and injunctive relief as the protest camp constituted a substantial, wilful obstruction of the highway, a material change of use without planning permission, and caused significant harm to the rights of others, including worshippers, local businesses, and the public. The interference with the defendants’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 was justified, necessary, and proportionate in light of the pressing social need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, public order, and the environment. The orders sought were the least intrusive means to achieve these aims.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; orders for possession and injunctive relief granted.

Orders

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