The High Court recently heard the cases of University of Birmingham v (1) Persons Unknown (2) Mariyah Ali [2024] EWHC 1770 (KB) and University of Nottingham v (1) Mx Joel Butterworth (2) Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1771 (KB) in quick succession and provided helpful guidance for landowners whose land becomes the subject of “sit in” protests.

Background

In both of these cases, a group of university students staged a “sit in” style protest earlier this year at their respective universities. The universities sought to regain possession of their land using part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules on the grounds of trespass.

Both universities issued Notices to Quit to the protesters to confirm that possession of the land was required and thereafter proceedings were issued. The universities sought a summary order for possession and so that the land could be recovered without the need for a trial.

Defence

In relation to the proceedings brought by University of Birmingham, there was no dispute between the parties that the land occupied by the Defendants was owned by the respective universities and that permission for the Defendants to remain on the land had been withdrawn. The Defendants therefore defended the claim for possession as unlawful, arguing that:

1. It amounted to discrimination on the grounds of beliefs in breach of sections 13 and 91 of the Equality Act 2010;
2. The university had not complied with its public sector equality duty in breach of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010;
3. It amounted to a breach of the university’s statutory duty to ensure freedom of speech for university students in breach of section 43(1) of the Education (No2) Act 1986; and
4. It amounts to a breach of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, read with articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Decision

In determining whether the university’s claim could be disposed of without a trial, the Court had to consider whether the Defendants had any real prospect of defending the claim and whether there was any other compelling reason why the claim should proceed to trial. In considering each defence raised, the Court held:

1. Although it was likely that the Defendants could establish that their beliefs which prompted the protest could amount to a protected characteristic, the decision by the university to issue a claim for possession was not motivated by those beliefs and therefore there was no real prospect of the claim being defended on the grounds of discrimination.
2. The university had an extensive policy in place for the organisation of events of this nature and made decisions in accordance with those policies. In the circumstances, it was considered that the university complied with its duties and therefore the Defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim on this basis.
3. The university’s policies intended to ensure that freedom of speech was secured for its students, however, the Defendants chose not to act in accordance with this policy and so the university’s decision to seek possession was not in breach of its statutory duty.
4. Finally, it was held that the Order for Possession had no real prospect of amounting to an unlawful interference with the Defendants’ convention rights as these are outweighed by the importance of the university regaining possession of its land.

The Court also did not consider that there was any other good reason why the claim should be disposed of at trial and therefore the Order for Possession was made in relation to the entirety of the land owned by the university.

The case brought by University of Nottingham was heard the next day by the same Judge and the Defendants defended against the claim for possession on the basis that they considered the university had failed to comply with its duties and obligations under statute and its own policies, and that that the decision to issue proceedings amounted to a breach of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Again, it was held that the Defendants had no real prospect of defending the claims on these grounds and therefore the Order for possession was made. This order also extended to all land owned by the university.

Commentary

Possession proceedings can be lengthy and complex, and these cases are a reminder of the importance of following due process to protect the legal position of all parties and to ensure that rights are not infringed.

If you would like further advice in relation to possession proceedings, please contact Louise Palmer on 01543 267231 or by email at lpalmer@ansons.law.