The University has been criticised by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) for applying for an injunction to prevent certain protest actions.

University lawyers made an application for the injunction on February 12, in response to pro-Palestine protests and encampments which unfolded in Cambridge, following the outbreak of the most recent Israel-Hamas conflict after the October 7 attacks.

The injunction request, made by the University, would have included “a prohibition on entering, occupying or remaining upon the land” without the University’s consent, of four sites previously used for protest.

This was to include Senate House, Senate House Yard and the Old Schools. It would also “[prevent] access on the part of any other individual to the relevant land” without the University’s consent. The University’s legal team requested that the injunction remain in place for five years.

Although an injunction was approved on Thursday (27/02), Judge Michael Fordham, who was presiding over the case, said that he would not agree to make any “final” order, or any order lasting five years.

Instead, he ordered a “very limited” injunction, meaning it was to apply only to Senate House and would only be in effect for the graduation ceremony which took place on Saturday (01/03). The return date for further consideration of the case will be the first available date after 17 March 2025.

The ELSC, an organisation dedicated to advocating for Palestinian rights, appointed representation and wrote to Fordham, voicing its concerns about wider injunctions. Fordham agreed that the ELSC could “intervene” in the litigation.

Grant Kynaston, the ELSC’s barrister, said that the organisation had only learnt of the University’s injunction two days before Thursday’s High Court Hearing in London.

He claimed in the ELSC's written argument that the injunction sought by the University was “broader than any comparable newcomer injunction in the university protest context,” claiming: “It would prohibit a wide array of conduct, all of which is said to somehow ground a claim in trespass or nuisance.”

Kynaston said: “It would potentially affect all those who manifest speech action or belief, connected with the Palestine-Israel conflict, whether or not in the context of protest,” adding “severe human rights and equality implications” were involved in the issues raised in the litigation.

The University stated that suggestions that they were trying to “restrict protest” were “ridiculous,” according to the BBC.

Yasser Vanderman, the leading barrister representing the University, said the University had sought “injunctive relief” to “restrain threatened acts of trespass and nuisance”. Vanderman had asked for the injunction to last five years- with annual reviews, arguing the “long-standing nature” of the conflict required an extended time-frame.

Pro-Palestine activists allege the University has failed to act on previous agreements to review investments concerning the arms industry. This is despite claims by the University that it is committed to reviewing its “approach to responsible investment”.