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 land by the protest camp constitutes an unlawful obstruction and breach of planning control. The City is entitled to possession and injunctive relief. The interference with protestors' rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is lawful, necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including worshippers and visitors, and to prevent disorder and crime.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 34 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: THE MAYOR, COMMONALITY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON; Defendant: TAMMY SAMEDE; Defendant: GEORGE BARDA; Defendant: DANIEL ASHMAN; Defendant: PERSONS UNKNOWN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Possession and Injunction Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Right to Protest, Obstruction of Highway, Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, Possession of Land, Planning Control, Proportionality, Freedom of Assembly
Public Law Human Rights Law Property Law Planning Law Right to Protest Obstruction of Highway Articles 10 and 11 ECHR Possession of Land +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession and Injunction Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indefinite occupation of highway land by protest camp is lawful
  2. 2 Whether City is entitled to possession and injunctive relief
  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 land by the protest camp constitutes an unlawful obstruction and breach of planning control. The City is entitled to possession and injunctive relief. The interference with protestors' rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is lawful, necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including worshippers and visitors, and to prevent disorder and crime.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Order for possession of Areas 1 and 3 granted to the City
  • Injunctions granted requiring removal of tents and structures from Areas 1, 2 and 3