The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors

On a permission application raising issues of general importance, the court may adjourn the application for renewal on notice where there is a possible good argument, even though it is not persuaded that the appeal has a real prospect of success. Any appeal remains conditional on permission being granted. Where the application raises matters of potential public interest and the applicant is unrepresented, the court may refer the papers to the Attorney-General to consider appearing as a friend of the court. The order is procedural and does not determine the substantive availability of relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The University of Oxford and representative claimants obtained injunctions from Grigson J restraining defendants involved in protest activity from harassment and related unlawful conduct. SPEAK Campaigns, the fourth defendant, applied for permission to appeal. It challenged whether relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could be granted in representative proceedings involving large groups of unnamed persons, against unincorporated associations sued on behalf of unnamed persons, and to restrain political protest or public demonstrations. The applicant did not attend and was unrepresented. The central issue was whether the permission application should be adjourned for renewal on notice.

Ward LJ determined only the permission application and made no final ruling on the substantive grounds.

1. The grounds raised potentially important questions concerning the availability and scope of relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in representative proceedings, against unincorporated associations, and in relation to political protest and public demonstration.
2. The court accepted that there might be a good argument capable of being advanced. It was not, however, persuaded that there was a real prospect of success. The earlier Cambridge proceedings involving protest activity showed that similar issues had previously been considered and that Chadwick LJ had regarded them as matters of general importance. Permission in that earlier matter had been granted, although the appeal was not prosecuted to finality.
3. In those circumstances, the appropriate course was to adjourn the application for permission to appeal so that it could be renewed on notice to the respondents. The appeal would follow only if permission were granted.
4. Given the potential public interest and the applicant’s lack of representation, the papers were to be referred to the Attorney-General for consideration of whether to appear as a friend of the court. The judge expressed no concluded view on the effect of proposed legislation or on the substantive merits.
5. The application was adjourned, a one-day time estimate was given, and costs were reserved.

1. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Grigson J granted injunctions on 10 November restraining the defendants from harassment and related unlawful conduct.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the fourth defendant’s application, Ward LJ adjourned permission to appeal for renewal on notice. The appeal was to follow if permission was granted; costs were reserved. The current judgment is reported at [2005] EWCA Civ 144.