The Government estimates that there are around 20,000 squatters in Britain. With the much publicised protests of Occupy London, the anti-capitalist protestors at Finsbury Square, St Paul's Cathedral and the Old Street Magistrates Court argue that there are around 1 million empty buildings in the UK and that communities should be able to make use of this space.
Commercial property owners will not be encouraged by the recent decision concerning the eviction of the Occupy London protestors from a vacant office building by Sun Street Property, a UBS subsidiary. Although UBS ultimately obtained possession the High Court Judgement emphasises the protracted process involved in evicting trespassers from commercial premises and the importance of following the possession procedure as set out in the Civil Procedure Rules Part 55 to the letter.
Commercial owners are able to apply for interim possession orders within 28 days of becoming aware of a trespass and failing to vacate with 24 hours of service of the order constitutes a criminal offence, however, it is well know that the police are often reluctant to get involved as these are deemed to be civil matters and it is difficult to pin the blame on the occupants. In this matter UBS applied to the Court for an interim injunction to prevent further protestors squatting on the site on the basis that the property was allegedly unsafe. It also sought a possession order and an order abridging time for service of the possession proceedings from the usual two days notice only 45 minutes.
The interim injunction and order for bridging time for service was granted on the same day at 6.45pm. At 9.10pm UBS solicitors served the protestors with the application by fixing the documents to the occupied property. At 9.15 a test message was sent to the protestors on a number they had provided informing them that a hearing of the claim had been listed for 10pm that night. The text message did not contain any information as to the location of the hearing. Unsurprisingly the protestors failed to attend and the Judge granted the injunction and the possession order in their absence.
The interim injunction and order for bridging time for service was granted on the same day at 6.45pm. At 9.10pm UBS solicitors served the protestors with the application by fixing the documents to the occupied property. At 9.15 a test message was sent to the protestors on a number they had provided informing them that a hearing of the claim had been listed for 10pm that night. The text message did not contain any information as to the location of the hearing. Unsurprisingly the protestors failed to attend and the Judge granted the injunction and the possession order in their absence.
The protestors subsequently applied to set aside the interim injunction and possession order arguing that the injunction should not have been granted without notice and should not have been sought in place of a possession order and the possession order should be set aside as they had no notice of the claim and no opportunity to defend it.
The High Court held that the shorter the period of notice permitted for service of a claim for possession, the more prominent the steps that must be taken to bring the claim to the defendant’s attention, especially where the defendant is not represented. The UBS notice to the protestors was held to be grossly inadequate.
The High Court held that the shorter the period of notice permitted for service of a claim for possession, the more prominent the steps that must be taken to bring the claim to the defendant’s attention, especially where the defendant is not represented. The UBS notice to the protestors was held to be grossly inadequate.
The Court however considered that certain parts of the UBS claim had merit, the protestors submitted in defence that the health and safety concerns that had been previously raised by UBS had been dealt with and that the protestors rights under articles 10 (right of freedom of expression) and 11 (right to freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights) should be paramount.
The Court held that the protestors article 10 rights could be exercised anywhere, not necessarily within the UBS building and that UBS was not seeking to prevent the protestors expression just their occupation of the building. Equally the Court held that article 11 rights could not justify taking over a private property just because it was convenient. The Court also said that with regard to article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention and that there was no authority to suggest that article 10 and 11 rights should override this right. The protestors did not appeal the decision and were evicted on the 30 January 2012.
RR Paice
