Warwick University v de Graaf
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BROWNE,Sir JOHN PENNYCUICK |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0509-6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 09 May 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0509-6
The Master of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Browne and
Sir John Pennycuick.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by plaintiffs from Order of Mr. Justice May on 7th May 1975.
Mr. J. FOX-ANDREWS, Q.C., and Mr. S. TUCKEY (instructed by Messrs. Linklaters and Paines) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Plaintiffs.
Mr D.J. TURNER-SAMUELS, Q.C., and Mr. S.J. SEDLEY (instructed by Messrs. Angel & Co. of Coventry) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
We need not trouble you, Mr. Fox-Andrews.
This is the first case we have had in this Court of a sit-in of students of a University. It concerns the University of Warwick, which has 3,000 students. The summer term started on Monday, 21st April of this year. On that very morning there was a meeting of the branch of the National Students' Union at this University. The President of the Students' Union was Mr. Kasper de Graaf, and a Mr. Michael Johnson was the Treasurer. Miss Nita Bowes was the Secretary and Mr. Dismore was a member of the executive committee. Mr. Brian Deer was an ex-member of the executive committee. During the spring term some of the students had raised objections to increases of rent for their accommodations. On this day, the first day of the summer term, the Union had a meeting. A motion was tabled by the executive of the Union, proposed by Mr. Kasper de Graaf and seconded by Mr. Johnson. The resolution was: "to effect an immediate orderly and disciplined occupation of the Senate House and the telephone exchange; to remain in occupation until the following demands are met"-. They made a number of demands: freezing the rents; withdrawal of all victimisation procedures; the opening of negotiations, and so forth. That very day, in pursuance of that resolution, action was taken. Mr. Brian Deer was seen putting tape on a window of the Senate House near to the Vice Chancellor's office. He intended to break the window. Kasper de Graaf was on the balcony holding a brick. Next to him was Mr. Brian Deer. Soon afterwards they were seen in the Senate House. Mr. Michael Johnson entered the building on that day and so did Miss Nita Bowes. Thos students, with many others — about 100 in all — entered the building on that day and so did Miss Nita Bowes. The authorities told the staff to lock up their offices and leave the building. The staff did so. The building and the telephoneexchange were occupied by the students. 150 of the staff were turned out. The result was to bring the administrative work of the University to a standstill. Some of the students started proceedings in the Court asking for an injunction requiring the University to hand over their grant cheques. That application for an injunction was refused by the Judge.
All that was the work of a minority of the students. The majority did not approve of what was done. They issued a circular saying:
"Are we merely a tool of the N.U.S.? … The signs are that Warwick students are being used by the N.U.S. as a tool in its anti-government campaign. Who took the decision? Only a minority of students even attended the UGM. Many did not know of the mortion. It is the majority who are now likely to suffer — They cannot get their grants. They cannot get their meal tickets. They cannot, if they wish to, pay their rents. They face the prospect of cash shortages, of £3 rent overcharges, of overdraft interest charges. We note that members of the executive and those in the know were careful to collect their grants before the UGM. Who is being hurt? It is the students who have suffered inconvenience, and are faced with financial hardship."
The occupation of the Senate House by this minority of students is very serious for all the students. The examination programme is going to begin. The papers have still to be printed. The whole of the examination programme will be thrown into confusion by this action if it is allowed to continue. These students, who number from 60 to 200, are disrupting the work of the diversity.
In these circumstances the University authorities have taken proceedings to seek to restore the Senate House and the telephone exchange to its right use. The only question of law is whether the requisite procedure has been followed. The students do not claimand could not possibly claim any lawful right to enter these buildings. They are acting in defiance of the law. There is no answer whatever to the claim to possession, so long as the procedural requirements have been complied with.
It is said — and the Judge upheld the contention — that the legal requirements have not been fulfilled. There is a new procedure for dealing with such cases as these. Previously it was found that the machinery of the Courts was inadequate. The remedy by injunction could only be obtained against named persons; and then it could not be enforced except by committal to prison. The remedy by an order for possession was long and subject to delays. So a new Order was passed. It is Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. It provided speedy summary procedure to obtain possession of land. The University sought to follow this new procedure. On 2nd May a summons was issued. The Judge-gave leave for short notice to be returnable on 7th May. The Order required these steps to be taken:
Order 113 (2)(2): "Where the person claiming possession is unable, after taking reasonable steps, to identify every person occupying the land for the purpose of making him a defendant, the originating summons shall be in Form No. 11A in Appendix A." Form 11A was fulfilled. The University named the five leaders. They said they had taken reasonable steps and were unable to identify the others. They claimed that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession; and that the defendants and other persons unknown were in occupation without licence or consent.
Then the plaintiffs had to file an affidavit in support. Sub-rule (3) says:
"The plaintiff shall file in support of the originating summons an affidavit stating …. that he has taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joe Macari Servicing Ltd v Chequered Flag International Inc.
...as a highly fact sensitive issue to be decided on the circumstances of each particular case. Those points plainly correct (see Warwick University v De Graaf [1975] 1 WLR 1126). 29. I find considerable assistance in applying the rule a passage in the judgement of Smith LJ (with which Dyson ......
- Burston Finance Ltd v Wilkins