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

A precautionary injunction against persons unknown may be granted where detailed evidence establishes a compelling need, a strong probability that a tort will be committed, and a real and imminent risk of substantial harm. Where Convention rights are engaged, the court must apply the enhanced likelihood threshold and undertake a structured proportionality assessment. The availability of criminal offences, police powers or internal disciplinary procedures does not necessarily provide an adequate alternative, particularly where those measures primarily respond after disruption has occurred. The order must define the respondents and prohibited conduct clearly, and contain appropriate territorial, temporal and procedural safeguards.

The University sought interim injunctions against persons unknown to restrain trespass, obstruction of access and the erection of structures at Senate House, Senate House Yard, the Old Schools and Greenwich House. The application arose from previous occupations and encampments connected with protests concerning the University’s alleged links to the conflict in Gaza. Fordham J had granted limited urgent relief until 1 March 2025, leaving the wider issues for determination.

The University subsequently sought relief for approximately four months, until 26 July 2025. The European Legal Support Centre opposed the application, and the National Council for Civil Liberties intervened on drafting and proportionality. The central issues were whether there was a sufficiently imminent risk of unlawful conduct and substantial harm, and whether the proposed restraints were justified and proportionate having regard to Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention.

1. Relief granted. The court was satisfied that there was a compelling need for precautionary injunctions for the proposed period. The evidence established an imminent and real risk, indeed a strong probability, of further occupations or deliberate obstruction at one or more of the sites, together with substantial harm to the University, its staff, third parties and graduation ceremonies.
2. Proceeding on the assumption most favourable to the protesters that Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3), applied, the court held that it was very likely that the University would obtain relief at trial. The University could rely on its common-law rights in trespass and private nuisance. Its A1P1 rights could also be prayed in aid, but were immaterial because the common-law rights were sufficient.
3. Applying the structured questions identified in DPP v Ziegler [2022] AC 408, any interference with Articles 10 and 11 pursued the legitimate aim of securing the University’s buildings, spaces and activities. The restraints were rationally connected to that aim, necessary, and proportionate. A prohibition confined only to graduation ceremonies would inadequately address the wider campaign and might increase the risk of incursions at other times.
4. Criminal offences, police powers and internal disciplinary procedures were not adequate less restrictive alternatives. They were principally directed to dealing with disruptive events after they occurred, whereas the injunction was justified by the need to prevent their occurrence.
5. The limited restraint on deliberately blocking access to the sites was a necessary adjunct to the trespass injunction and did not unjustifiably restrict use of the public highway. The order did not prevent protest elsewhere, and ordinary use of supportive badges or clothing would not breach it. The court also rejected the Article 14 arguments.
6. Even applying the guidance in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2024] AC 983, the requirements for precision, clarity, territorial and temporal limits, service, liberty to apply and a cross-undertaking in damages were met, subject to final drafting.

High Court (King's Bench Division): Fordham J granted urgent limited injunctions on 27 February 2025 until 1 March 2025. The remaining issues were adjourned. Mr Justice Soole granted the proposed interim precautionary relief on 21 March 2025, subject to final drafting.