Queen Mary University of London v LSY

Hearing date: 10 ^th July 2024

Judgment: 20 ^th September 2024

On 10 July 2024 I heard the adjourned hearing of the Claimant University's claim for possession of its Mile End campus, excepting those parts which were subject to leasehold interests registered to third parties.

The claim was settled as between the University and the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants on the terms of a consent order which I made on 10 July 2024. The consent order included an order that the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants should give the University possession forthwith of the part of the University's land edged red on the plan attached to the order, being part of the University's Mile End campus (the “ Plan”), but excluding the land hatched green on the Plan namely those areas subject to leasehold interests registered to third parties. That left outstanding the University's claim for possession against persons unknown and against two individuals who, additionally to the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants, the University had identifed as being protesters in occupation as such of part of its campus and who were added as 4 ^th and 5 ^th Defendants.

Mr Burton KC attended in order to deal with the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants' informal application to continue anonymity orders in their favour which I had made on 7 ^th June 2024. For reasons given at the hearing, I continued those anonymity orders.

The two individuals who, additionally to the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants, the University had identifed as being protesters in occupation of part of its campus, did not seek to make submissions. On the informal application of the University and upon the University's Leading Counsel stating that the University did not intend to seek an order for costs against them, I ordered that the two additionally identifed protesters be added as 4 ^th and 5 ^th Defendants. The order for their joinder having made without notice to them, I ordered that they had the right to have it set aside or varied within 7 days after service of it upon them. I was, however, concerned that, like the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants and for similar reasons, they might wish to apply for anonymity orders. I was anxious not to pre-empt any such application. Accordingly, I ordered that their identities be not published before the expiration of 7 days after the service of the order upon them, and that the permission given to them to apply included permission to apply for anonymity orders. Such an application was made on 17 July 2024 and I made anonymity orders in respect of the 4 ^th and 5 ^th Defendants on 19 July 2024.

After reading the evidence and hearing argument from the University's Leading Counsel I was satisfed that the University had served the relevant documents appropriately and within the relevant time limits and that the Defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, either as a matter or property law or by the invocation of public law or of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”). I gave my decision there and then at approximately 1.00 pm on 10 ^th July so that the University could proceed quickly to obtain and enforce a writ for possession.

There was some urgency to the obtaining of possession because graduation ceremonies were due to take place on 18, 24 – 26 and 29 – 31 July 2024, with the expected number of graduates and guests over the 7 days being 4,380 graduates and 11,300 guests.

The part of the Mile End campus occupied by the protesters as an encampment, was a lawn area in front of the Queen's Building on that campus. The lawn is the area where photo opportunities are taken of students celebrating the end of their University careers with family and their lecturers outside what one witness described as the “iconic” Queens' Building. Normally, when graduation takes place, the lawn and the tarmac road beside it connects buildings called the Queens' Building and the People's Palace. The Claimant's key venues are in those two buildings. At large events such as Graduation or conferences, the lawn can be used as a reception area. It is somewhere for people to congregate.

I formed the view that, having regard to my availability and the time needed for me to prepare a full judgment, if the making of the possession order awaited such a judgment the University's graduation ceremony arrangements would be imperilled. Accordingly I made the order for possession there and then, and said that I would give my reasons in writing. These are those reasons.

The claim was made by Queen Mary University of London (“the University”). Initially it was only against Persons Unknown. It was for possession of the whole of the Mile End campus of the University, but excluding those parts of it which were occupied by other persons under leases from the University.

The occupation in respect of which the University seeks relief is occupation by a group of protesters. It is unclear whether the membership of this group is constant or fuctuates.

The protests are or are mainly protests in support of Palestine and against Israel. Amongst other things, the protesters aim to persuade the University to disinvest from and to cease using the services of companies which the protesters believe directly or indirectly support the State of Israel, both generally and specifcally in relation to its operations in Gaza. They also aim to persuade the University to break of its relations with Israeli universities.

The occupation started on 13 May 2024.

The brief procedural history of the claim is that:

13.1. On 5 June 2024 the University issued these proceedings against Persons Unknown under CPR Part 55.

13.2. On 6 June 2024 Chief Master Shuman, having read the evidence in support and having accepted that the claim was suitable to be dealt with in the High Court and that the normal period of service of the claim form be shortened in view of the risk of damage to property and persons, ordered that:

“The claim for possession should be heard before a judge at 10 am on 7 June before a judge to be published in the list. Time for service of the claim, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 55.5(2)(b), was to be abridged provided that the defendants were served with claim form, particulars of claim and any witness statements in support by 3 pm on 6 June 2024.”

13.3. The claim was listed for hearing before me in accordance with that order.

13.4. I was satisfed that the condition as to service was satisfed.

13.5. By the time of the hearing before me on 7 June, two of the protesters had, through solicitors, instructed leading counsel and junior counsel to represent them at that hearing. I joined those two protesters as the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants (LSY and MBC).

13.6. Two lines of defence were advanced on behalf of LSY and MBC.

13.7. The frst was that this was not an appropriate case for a possession order. If any order was to be made it was said that it should be an injunction.

13.8. The second was that the University was in breach of its public law obligations (the public law point). In particular it was said that the University had acted unfairly in deciding to bring the possession claim because it had not engaged with the protesters.

13.9. There was also a practical point, now recognised by the University, that certain leases over parts of the Mile End campus meant that the University was not entitled to a possession order in respect of those parts of the campus.

13.10. Neither Ms Stacey KC for the University nor I were in a position fully to deal with the public law point either on the law or on the facts.

13.11. On the basis of Mr Burton KC's submissions on behalf of LSY and MBC, I was concerned that the public law point might just be so well arguable as to give rise to a real prospect of success on it or, in the language of Part 55 rule 55.8(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, that the claim was “genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial.”

13.12. I was not satisfed that the public law point had been suficiently considered to enable me to decide whether or not that was the case on 7 June. I therefore ordered the adjournment of the claim for further consideration of the issues and as to the University's entitlement to an order for possession.

13.13. I gave directions as to the fling and service of further evidence, skeletons and bundles and directed that the adjourned hearing should be listed for 10 am on 10 July with a time estimate of 3 hours, with no live evidence or examination or cross-examination of witnesses.

13.14. My intention was that the adjourned hearing should be just that. That is to say a continuation of the hearing of 7 June but with fuller submissions on the law and with the parties having the opportunity to put in further evidence.

13.15. On 7 June I also made an anonymity order in respect of LSY and MBC which I ordered should remain in force until 10 July 2024 or such date as the adjourned claim was listed for hearing.

13.16. By an application dated 19 June 2024 LSY and MBC sought a variation of my order of 7 June so as (1) to add or substitute an order that they fle and serve a defence by midnight on 20 June and (2) for an order listing the case for allocation and a directions hearing.

13.17. It appeared from the contents of the application that it was made under the misapprehension that by my judgment and order of 7 June I had determined that the claim...