Queen Mary University of London v LSY & Ors

The University sought summary possession under CPR Part 55 of its Mile End campus from a group of protesters occupying a lawn outside the Queen's Building. The court applied the Part 55 test (equated to the summary judgment test under CPR 24) and concluded there was no real prospect of the defendants successfully defending the possession claim. The University was the registered proprietor and the protesters required permission under the University Code of Practice on Free Speech for events; no such permission was given and any permission had been withdrawn by letters of 16, 22 and 3 June. The court accepted that Convention rights under Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR were engaged but held that a summary possession order was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate objective (protection of the University’s property rights and Article 1 of Protocol 1), and was proportionate on the facts. The court also found no realistic prospect of success on public law or discrimination grounds. Possession was ordered (with exclusion of parts subject to third‑party leases) and anonymity orders for named student defendants were continued.

The claimant, Queen Mary University of London, issued proceedings under CPR Part 55 on 5 June 2024 for possession of its Mile End campus (excluding parts subject to leases) against persons unknown occupying a lawn as a protest encampment. The occupation began on 13 May 2024. Two protesters were joined and later settled by consent; two additional protesters were added as defendants and granted anonymity. The University relied on its registered title and its Code of Practice on Free Speech which requires permission for events; the encampment and associated rallies were treated as events for which no permission had been given and any implied permission had been withdrawn by written notices of 16, 22 and 3 June.

The hearing was a summary possession hearing under CPR 55. The court framed the issues as (i) whether, as a matter of property law (taking into account ECHR rights), there was a real prospect of a defence to the possession claim; and (ii) whether there was a real prospect of successfully challenging the University’s relevant decisions as unlawful in public law or under the Human Rights Act. The University relied on documentary evidence of title, the Code and the withdrawal of permission; the protesters advanced arguments including that an injunction would be more appropriate, that the University had acted unfairly and unlawfully and that ECHR rights were engaged.

The court held that the protesters were trespassers for the purposes of the encampment because the Code required University permission for events and none was given. Any potential licence or permission was withdrawn before 10 July. On ECHR issues the court assumed the protest engaged Articles 9, 10 and 11 but concluded that eviction was prescribed by law, rationally connected to protecting the University’s property rights (Article 1 Protocol 1), and proportionate: the University’s property rights and operational needs (including large upcoming graduation ceremonies and summer schools) outweighed the severity of interference with the protesters’ rights in the context. The court further determined that there was no real prospect of a successful public law or discrimination challenge to the University’s decisions (including Gold Committee decisions) given the facts, the Code, and the balancing exercised by the University. The court therefore made a summary order for possession forthwith of the campus (excluding leased parts) and explained that enforcement could proceed urgently because of imminent graduation ceremonies. The court also continued anonymity orders for the named student defendants.

First instance: The court granted the University a summary order for possession of its Mile End campus (excluding parts subject to third‑party leases). The court found no real prospect of a successful defence on property, public law or ECHR grounds and held that eviction was lawful and proportionate. Consent terms were recorded as between the University and two named defendants and anonymity orders were continued for student defendants.