AC-2024-LDS-000019 - [2025] EWHC 2940 (Admin)

At the time of the AGM the Claimant was a postgraduate student at the university and had been elected Chair of the Student Council of the Union. He was also the Chair of the Student Executive Committee of the Union.

It is clear that prior to the AGM difficulties had developed in the relationship between the Claimant and the Union.

The Claimant’s case is that during his tenure as chair of the Student Council he challenged alleged malpractice within the Union and justifiably reported certain matters to the Charity Commission. These matters are said to have resulted in regulatory advice and guidance being given to the Union’s trustees by the Commission. At [4] of his statement of facts and grounds, the Claimant contends that he intended to “draw attention to these matters as well as express views / protest” at the AGM.

The Union’s position, which has been elicited from the complaint documentation provided by the University, is that they had received complaints from Union staff and officers that they had been harassed, intimidated and threatened by the Claimant over a period of time beginning in November 2023. It was said that he had been repeatedly aggressive and intimidatory, dismissed others’ contributions, interrupted staff and refused to accept when others had a different point of view, especially female officers, to such an extent that the wellbeing and health of some of the staff had been adversely affected.

On 7 March 2024 the Union informed the Claimant by e-mail that the concerns about his conduct that had been raised were going to be investigated as part of the Union’s duty of care to its staff and members. The Claimant was invited to a meeting to discuss the allegations. A date of 13 March 2024 for this meeting was suggested. The e-mail confirmed that in accordance with Union Bye-Law 3 (7.1), the Claimant was being placed under interim sanctions. These were to the effect that he was not permitted to enter on to Union premises, use Union facilities, represent the union at any event or contact staff members.

The effect of these interim sanctions was said to be that the Claimant’s role as Student Council Chair was suspended and he would not be able to represent the Student Council at the AGM or chair the AGM.

The Claimant made clear that he did not accept the validity of these interim sanctions. He has contended variously that they were ultra vires the Union’s powers; and that the Union acted contrary to its Constitution and Bye-Laws in failing to give him sufficient notice of the allegations against him and failing to organise a meeting promptly.

The Claimant made it clear that he intended to attend the AGM. I have seen e-mail correspondence from the Claimant in which he said that he would not be representing the Union at the AGM but in acting as chair of the Student Council, he would be the impartial intermediary between the Union and its members. There is documentation suggesting that he said that any unlawful attempts to prevent him from attending the AGM or any other unlawful acts would be “met with measured and reasonable responses as appropriate”. The Union’s position was that this response was concerning, in the context of their previous experiences with the Claimant, and was interpreted as a threat.

The AGM was due to take place at 1.30 pm on 11 March 2024. In light of the Union’s concerns, at around 10.04 am on that day, the CEO of the Union informed the University security staff that the Claimant was not permitted to attend the AGM in any capacity, either to represent the Union or as a student, because of the risk he presented to the safety and wellbeing of the Union staff, officers and other students. The Union asked the University to provide security assistance at the AGM.

On the afternoon of 11 March 2024, the Claimant arrived at the AGM and attempted to gain access. He indicated to the security staff that he had documentation which would illustrate that he did in fact have the right to attend. It is alleged that he became argumentative, confrontational and violent. Security staff prevented him from accessing the AGM. The police became involved and arrived at 4.56 pm. The Claimant was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a security guard. He contended he had acted in self-defence. I was told that ultimately no further action was taken against the Claimant by the police.