University of Essex v Djemal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY,LORD JUSTICE SHAW |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1980 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1980] EWCA Civ J0314-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 1980 E No. 552 |
| Date | 14 March 1980 |
[1980] EWCA Civ J0314-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Chancery Division
Group A
(Mr. Justice Walton)
Lord Justice Buckley
Lord Justice Shaw and
Lord Justice Brightman
In the Matter of the Premises at the University of Essex
MR. HUGH LADDIE and MR. MAHTIN HOWE (instructed by Messrs. Douglas-Mann & Co., Solicitors, London EC4A 1JQ) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Appellants).
THE DEFENDANTS (Respondents) appeared in person by one of their number, Miss Sheila Margaret Jones.
This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Walton on the 11th of this month; it was an order for possession of part of the premises of the University of Essex, which had been adversely occupied by a body of students by way of protest about certain matters as to which they considered they had grievances; the learned judge declined to make the order in as wide terms as the University sought.
The order which was asked for was an order for possession of "the premises at the University of Essex"; that is to say, an order extending to the whole of the University premises. The learned judge was only prepared to make the order in respect of that part of those premises which was actually in the occupation of the protesting students. This appeal is brought to this court upon the ground that the learned judge was in error in holding that he had no jurisdiction under Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to make an order for possession of premises more extensive than those identified as currently in the occupation of the students.
The defendants to the proceedings are seven named undergraduates of the University and persons unknown, because the University authorities were only able to identify seven of the protesting students, whose number, I gather, was considerably larger than seven; in fact it was perhaps a fluctuating body of students.
The students first went into occupation of part of the administrative offices of the University on 29th February 1980; on 29th February 1980 a possession order was obtained in respect of that part of the University premises, which was executed on 5th March. So the University then recovered possession of that part of their property.
On that same day, 5th March, the students occupied another area of what is called Level 6 of part of the University buildings. They were served with a written notice requesting them to leave that area and notifying them that if they failed to do so by 9 o'clock on 6th March, the University would take legal proceedings. They did not vacate that area by the time laid down in that notice, and the originating summons which instituted these proceedings was issued by the University on 7th March against the seven named defendants and other persons unknown.
The matter came before Mr. Justice Walton first on 10th March. At 3 o'clock on that morning, or at about that time, the students had vacated the area of the University buildings which they had occupied on the second occasion, 5th March, so that when the matter came before the court they had already given up adverse possession of that part of the University buildings. But they left behind them a document which is headed "OCCUPATION STATEMENT", in which they said that the Student Union had been in indefinite occupation for the last ten days and so far the University had made no concessions at all. They then made reference to the matters about which they thought they had grievances, and at the end of the document they say: "If finance committee fails to agree to these demands then we shall recommend further direct action …s on Wednesday. Since we have restored possession of the occupied area to the University there will be no need for them to proceed with the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Secretary of State for the Environment Food & Rural Affairs v Meier and Others
...55. But I would certainly not interpret "occupied" in Rule 55.1(b) as preventing the use of the special procedure in a case like University of Essex v Djemal [1980] 1 WLR 1301 where some protesters were excluding the university from one part of its campus, but many students and members of ......
-
Hall and Others v Mayor of London (on Behalf of the Greater London Authority)
...to expect the claimant to identify which part each defendant occupies, and practicality is a relevant factor, as the decision in University of Essex v Djemal [1980] 1 WLR 1301 61 The other arguments raised on behalf of Mr Haw both rely on the contention that his health requires him, or at ......
- Wiltshire County Council v Frazer
- School of Oriental and African Studies v Persons Unknown