School of Oriental And African Studies (SOAS) v Persons Unknown

A student sit-in on private university premises constitutes trespass where it excludes the university from possession. Students’ contractual permission to use university premises for educational purposes does not include a right to occupy them exclusively or to sleep there.

Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention do not confer a general right to protest or assemble on private land. A positive obligation affecting property rights may arise only in an exceptional case where exclusion prevents any effective exercise of the relevant freedom or destroys its essence. A possession order may extend across a university campus regarded as one indivisible property, but not to wholly separate property which has not been occupied.

The claimant, a private charitable university, sought urgent possession of part of its London campus occupied by students conducting a sit-in protesting proposed higher-education spending changes. The application was initially made without notice against persons unknown under CPR Part 55. The students argued that the lease permitted wider student use, that the occupation was orderly, and that Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention provided an arguable defence.

The claimant relied on its leasehold possession, alleged trespass, disruption to academic and other activities, health and safety concerns, and the risk that the occupation would spread. The central issues were whether any realistic defence existed and, if possession was ordered, whether the order should cover only the occupied suite or the whole campus.

1. Immediate possession. The claimant was entitled to immediate possession. The students’ permission to use the campus arose from their contractual relationship with the university and was limited to educational purposes in the broad sense. It did not authorise an exclusive sit-in, sleeping on the premises, or excluding the university from possession.
2. Convention rights. The reasoning in Appleby v The United Kingdom 37 EHRR 38 was plainly against an arguable defence under Articles 10 and 11. Those provisions do not confer a general freedom of forum on private land. The exceptional possibility of a positive obligation affecting property rights arises only where exclusion prevents any effective exercise of freedom of expression or destroys the essence of the right. The students had many other means and places in which to express their views and assemble.
3. The possible status of the university as a public authority did not alter the possession analysis. Even assuming that status for a possible judicial review, the decision to seek possession could not realistically be regarded as one which no reasonable public body could have taken.
4. Extent of the order. The whole campus could properly be covered because it was capable of being treated as one piece of property and the university’s right to possession was indivisible. University of Essex v Djemal [1980] 1 WLR 1301 remained binding and had not been overruled by Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs v Meier & Others [2009] UKSC 11; [2009] 1 WLR 2780. A pre-emptive order could not extend to wholly separate property which could not reasonably be regarded as part of the occupied premises.