The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown

A final quia timet injunction may be granted against persons unknown, including potential newcomers, where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights, a real and imminent risk of tortious conduct, no realistic defence, and no equally effective remedy.

Where protest rights under Articles 10 and 11 are engaged, the court must assess legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality. An injunction may be proportionate where it is geographically confined, time-limited, permits protest elsewhere or with consent, and is the only realistic means of protecting property and preventing substantial disruption.

The University sought summary judgment and final injunctive relief against persons unknown to restrain threatened trespass and private nuisance at three Cambridge sites. The application followed interim injunctions granted by Fordham J and Soole J. The University also sought to add Chestnut Tree Lawn, where ownership was disputed but the University claimed possessory title or an easement.

The interveners raised issues concerning notice, the summary-judgment procedure, the alleged absence of a real and imminent risk, Convention rights, the availability of police powers, the clarity and duration of the proposed order, and the University’s rights over Chestnut Tree Lawn.

1. Summary judgment and notice. The application could proceed despite the absence of an Acknowledgment of Service or Defence because the defendants were persons unknown and proper notice had been given in accordance with Soole J’s order. Since the injunction could affect newcomers, the hearing was treated as without notice and the University was required to make full and frank disclosure.
2. Entitlement to relief. The University had causes of action in trespass and private nuisance concerning the established sites. In relation to Chestnut Tree Lawn, the evidence established at least a possessory title or an easement sufficient to found a nuisance claim. The history of repeated occupations, statements that the campaign would continue, and the absence of any disavowal established a real and imminent risk. The application was not premature, including during the academic vacation.
3. Convention rights. Articles 10 and 11 were potentially engaged even where protest involved trespass. The proposed restrictions were prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the University’s land, activities and community, and were sufficiently clear. Police and criminal-law powers were not comparably effective because they operated principally after disruption had occurred.
4. Proportionality. The injunction struck a fair balance. It concerned confined sites previously affected by direct action, was not viewpoint-specific or absolute, allowed consent-based protest and left ample opportunities for protest elsewhere. Article 14 provided no separate basis for refusing relief.
5. Newcomers and duration. The Wolverhampton safeguards were satisfied: compelling need, procedural protection, full and frank disclosure, territorial limitation and a just and convenient order. The injunction was limited to one year, subject to review and possible renewal.
6. The University was granted summary judgment, permission to amend its pleadings to include Chestnut Tree Lawn, and final injunctive relief in the terms of the annexed order.

The judgment records earlier interlocutory stages in the same proceedings:

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Fordham J granted a short-term interim injunction on 27 February 2025.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Soole J granted a wider interim injunction after hearings on 19–21 March 2025: [2025] EWHC 724 (KB).
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): the present court granted final injunctive relief.