Ben-Dor & Ors, R (on the application of) v University of Southampton

Ben-Dor & Ors, R (on the application of) v University of Southampton

The University’s decisions to withdraw permission for the conference and require security costs were proportionate interferences with the claimants’ rights, justified by substantial risks to public safety and disorder, and consistent with statutory and Convention obligations. The decisions were not unreasonable,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Professor Oren Ben-Dor; Claimant: Professor Suleiman Sharkh; Defendant: University of Southampton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment and Permission Determination
Outcome
JR 1 dismissed; permission for JR 2 refused.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, University Governance, Risk Assessment, Security Costs, Proportionality, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Education Law Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly University Governance Risk Assessment +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Oren Ben-Dor

Claimant

Professor Suleiman Sharkh

Claimant

University of Southampton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment and Permission Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University unlawfully interfered with the claimants' rights to freedom of expression and assembly by withdrawing permission for a conference and requiring security costs
  2. 2 Whether the decisions breached Section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986, Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the University's Code of Practice
  3. 3 Whether the University's risk assessment and reliance on external factors were lawful and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The University’s decisions to withdraw permission for the conference and require security costs were proportionate interferences with the claimants’ rights, justified by substantial risks to public safety and disorder, and consistent with statutory and Convention obligations. The decisions were not unreasonable, procedurally irregular, or based on speculation, and the requirement to fund security costs did not unlawfully inhibit freedom of speech where funds were available.

Court Disposition

JR 1 dismissed; permission for JR 2 refused.

Orders

  • JR 1 dismissed.
  • Permission to bring JR 2 refused.