University of Birmingham v Persons Unknown & Anor

The University obtained a summary possession order under Part 55 CPR to recover campus land occupied by an unauthorised encampment. The claimant proved it was the registered owner and that the occupiers were trespassers. The court applied the Part 24 test (no real prospect of defence and no other compelling reason for trial) and concluded that the named defendant, Mariyah Ali, had no real prospect of defending the claim.

Key legal points: (1) summary possession in trespass claims under Part 55 is permissible where there is no real prospect of a substantive defence; (2) contentions under the Equality Act 2010 (sections 13, 91 and 149) failed because there was no evidence that the University acted because of the defendant's beliefs and the University had demonstrably had regard to its public sector equality duty; (3) the University had complied with its duties under section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986 through a published Code of Practice on freedom of speech; (4) even assuming Convention rights under articles 9, 10 and 11 were engaged, the interference was prescribed by law and proportionate to the University’s legitimate objective of protecting its property and other users; and (5) a wider possession order over other campus land was justified to prevent displacement of the encampment.

The claimant, the University of Birmingham, sought a summary possession order to recover its land on the Edgbaston campus (notably The Green Heart) occupied by an unauthorised encampment of protesters. The encampment began on 9 May 2024 and grew over weeks; the University served notices and then resolved to seek possession following concerns about disruption to University activities including graduation ceremonies.

The named defendant, Ms Ali, a student and one of the campers, defended the claim, asserting four principal defences: (i) direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (sections 13 and 91) because termination of any licence and the possession claim were allegedly motivated by her beliefs; (ii) breach of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; (iii) breach of the University’s statutory duty to secure freedom of speech under section 43(1) of the Education (No 2) Act 1986; and (iv) unlawful interference with Convention rights (articles 9, 10 and 11) under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The court framed the issues as whether Ms Ali had a real prospect of successfully defending the possession claim on any of those grounds and whether there was any other compelling reason for trial. The judge proceeded, where favourable to the defendant, to assume arguendo that Ms Ali might have a protected philosophical belief and that Convention rights might be engaged, and also assumed for present purposes that the University’s enforcement decision could amount to an exercise of public functions. Despite those assumptions, the court found:

• on direct discrimination: there was no evidence the University’s decisions were motivated by the defendant’s beliefs and the reverse burden under section 136 was not triggered; the claim for direct discrimination was withdrawn;
• on public sector equality duty: the University’s Code expressly incorporated equality considerations and the evidence showed practical and substantive regard was had to PSED, so there was no real prospect of success;
• on section 43 of the 1986 Act: the University had taken reasonable practicable steps via its Code to secure freedom of speech and the refusal to tolerate an unauthorised encampment did not breach that duty;
• on Convention rights: assuming engagement, the interference was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the University's property and other users, and was proportionate — less intrusive alternatives were either unavailable or would not achieve the objective; and
• no other compelling reason for trial existed, so the claim was suitable for summary determination under CPR 55.8.

The court therefore granted a summary possession order and extended it to other campus land to prevent displacement of the encampment.

The claim is allowed. The court granted a summary possession order in favour of the University. The judge held that the defendants were trespassers and that Ms Ali had no real prospect of successfully defending the possession claim on grounds of unlawful discrimination (Equality Act 2010 sections 13 and 91), breach of the public sector equality duty (section 149), breach of section 43 of the Education (No 2) Act 1986, or incompatibility with Convention rights (articles 9, 10 and 11 read with section 6 HRA). The order was proportionate to the University’s legitimate objective of regaining possession and protecting the rights of other users.