KB-2025-000497 - [2025] EWHC 2330 (KB)

The University’s application which was before me on 23 July 2025 was issued on 2 July 2025. That application sought (1) summary judgment, pursuant to CPR Part 24, granting the University final injunctive relief until 25 July 2026, and permission to obtain summary judgment without an Acknowledgement of Service or Defence having been served; and (2) permission to re-amend the Amended Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim. The amendments to which the second part of the orders sought related were changes to add Chestnut Tree Lawn to the areas to which the injunctions were to apply.

The University served the application on the Interveners in the usual way. As to the Defendants, given that they are persons unknown, service in the usual way was not possible. Soole J’s order provided, by paragraph 7, that notification to persons unknown of any further applications in the action should be effected by the University carrying out each of the following steps: (a) uploading a copy of the Order onto the website www.cam.ac.uk/notices; (b) sending an email to the addresses listed in Schedule 3 to the Order, namely [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected], stating that an application had been made and that the application documents could be found at the website referred to in (a); and (c) affixing a notice at those locations marked with an ‘x’ on Plan 1 and Plan 2 in Schedule 1 to the Order, stating that an application had been made and where it could be accessed in hard copy and online.

The evidence in the fourth witness statement of Samuel Maw shows that these steps were taken by 7 July 2025 and, in addition, by the same date, a notice had been placed on a stake in Chestnut Tree Lawn. An updated version of the notice, stating where hard copies of the application could be obtained was affixed at the locations marked on Plans 1 and 2 in Schedule 1 to Soole J’s Order, and on Chestnut Tree Lawn, on 15 July 2025. The notices stated that the hearing would take place on 23 July 2025.

Soole J’s Order provided, by paragraph 8, that notification of further documents (ie other than of the Soole J Order itself, and further applications) might be effected by carrying out only steps (a) and (b) as I have set them out above. Mr Maw’s witness statement states that this was done in relation to the hearing bundle and the University’s Skeleton Argument by 21 July 2025.

No representations were received from any Defendant, and the Defendants, themselves, did not appear and were not represented at the hearing. Liberty indicated that it would not appear or be represented, but relied on the written submissions it had submitted at the hearing before Soole J. I took those submissions into account. ELSC submitted helpful written submissions drafted by Mr Kynaston, together with a witness statement of Ms Anna Ost and one from Professor Clément Mouhot. Ms Ost’s witness statement, amongst other things, explained that ELSC was not in a position to appear at the hearing on 23 July 2025, as it has only a small UK-based legal team, and was stretched because of ELSC’s need to work on the proscription of Palestine Action.

It is helpful to note, at this stage, that Mr Kynaston’s written submissions on behalf of ELSC took three principal points, each of which I will consider in the course of this judgment. They were: