High Court gives reasons for rejecting injunction bid over trans rights protest outside equality watchdog offices

The application was made by the leaseholders of Tintagel House in London, a 10-floor office block with a range of occupiers. The EHRC has 16 desks out of the 1,000 in the building.

However, in The Office Group Properties Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1438 (KB) (12 June 2025), following a hearing Mr Justice Sheldon refused the injunction against “persons unknown” on the basis that there was a lack of evidence as to the recurrence of the protest. He has now handed down a written judgment setting out why he reached that view.

Campaigners from the group 'Trans Kids Deserve Better' set up an encampment outside the offices to protest the EHRC's interim update on its code of practice for services, public functions and associations, which the watchdog issues following the Supreme Court's judgment concerning the definition of the words ‘man’, ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010. (For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16).

The protesters' site was within the area of land within the applicants’ leasehold title.

The campaign group has been involved in various forms of protest, including climbing on a building occupied by the NHS, releasing 6,000 crickets at the LGB Alliance's annual conference, and a "die-in" carried out by 16 protestors at Victoria Station.

Protesters arrived at the offices on 26 May and remained there until 30 May. Around 10 protesters stayed overnight on 27 May, and around 30 were present during the day on 29 May.

On 30 May 2025, the claimants lodged a claim form seeking an order of possession of the premises and injunctive relief to restrain trespassory protest.

A process server served the unsealed claim form personally on individuals present at the encampment at mid-day. The protecters then departed later in the afternoon.

Sheldon J said the application "clearly fails because the evidence presented by the Claimants does not come close to demonstrating a compelling justification for the order".

He added: "Simply put, whilst there may be a possibility that a trespassory protest will take place at Tintagel House at some further point before the expiry of the EHRC's licence, the evidence is far removed from establishing a strong probability that the protest will recur, let alone that it will recur imminently."

Sheldon J said the claimants had to demonstrate the strong probability of a tort being committed in the very near future and that "Trans Kids Deserve Better" were highly likely to return to the offices shortly to resume the protest or that they would encourage others to do so.

The judge added: "The Claimants' case was built on the evidence that (i) "Trans Kids Deserve Better" have shown their interest in protesting against the EHRC at their offices including Tintagel House;(ii) the underlying cause of that protest may not go away during the period in which the EHRC has a licence at Tintagel House; (iii) "Trans Kids Deserve Better" have shown themselves as capable of returning to the same premises for the purposes of protest (at the NHS offices, and at the constituency office of Wes Streeting MP); and (iv) "Trans Kids Deserve Better" had not said that they would not be coming back. At most this evidence suggests the possibility that the protest might recur at some point in the next 7 months or so. This is simply insufficient to invoke the Court's injunction powers."

Adam Carey