High Court Endorses Seven Principles For Securing Precautionary Injunctions

• Published date: 20 July 2023
• Subject Matter: Consumer Protection, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Education, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Cooley LLP
• Author: Mr Oliver McGlashan

Injunctions are typically sought by parties after wrongdoing has already taken place. However, English courts may grant a 'quia timet' - or 'precautionary' - injunction to prevent an actionable wrong from being committed. In University of Brighton v. Persons Unknown Occupying Land,¹ the High Court of England and Wales granted a final injunction preventing protesters from occupying certain areas of the claimant's executive administration office. This judgment provides a useful restatement of the principles applied by the courts when determining whether to award a precautionary injunction.

Background

On 25 May 2023, 'persons unknown' broke into the offices of the university's executive administration office and barricaded themselves inside. They also accessed the roof of the building, displaying banners that publicised their protest against the possibility of redundancies taking place amongst staff at the university. On 30 May 2023, the claimant was granted an interim injunction which required the 'persons unknown' to vacate the premises. Even after they were notified about the interim injunction, the protesters remained, only leaving six days later (and not necessarily because of the existence of the order). The claimant then applied for a final injunction to restrain and prevent future acts of trespass.

The High Court's decision

Until recently, courts considering applications for precautionary injunctions would apply a two-stage test:

• Is there a strong probability that, unless restrained by an injunction, the defendant will commit a wrong against the claimant?
• If the defendant committed that wrong, would it cause irreparable harm?

In Boyd and Another v. Ineos Upstream Limited and Others,² the Court of Appeal...