Court: High Court (Chancery Division) Citation: [1995] 2 EGLR 130 Facts: In CIN Properties Ltd v. Rawlins, the dispute involved a shopping center owned by CIN Properties Ltd, a private company. Rawlins and others were protestors who entered the shopping center to distribute leaflets and hold a peaceful protest on issues of public concern. The shopping center management prohibited this activity and asked the protestors to leave. When the protestors refused, CIN Properties Ltd sought an injunction to prevent them from entering and using the premises for protests. Legal Issues: Property Rights vs. Public Access: Whether the owners of a shopping center, a privately-owned space serving as a public venue, have the right to control or limit expressive activities such as protests on the premises. Scope of Trespass: Whether the protestors’ actions amounted to trespass given that they were in a publicly accessible area. Decision: The High Court ruled in favor of CIN Properties Ltd, granting the injunction to prohibit the protestors from conducting demonstrations on the shopping center property. The court held that the shopping center, despite being open to the public, was private property. Therefore, CIN Properties Ltd retained the right to control the activities on its premises, including restricting access or activities it deemed incompatible with its interests or business operations. The court confirmed that even though the shopping center was accessible to the public, this did not grant the public an unrestricted right to use it for purposes other than shopping or those approved by the property owners. The protestors' actions were considered trespass, as they remained on the property after being asked to leave by management. Significance: CIN Properties Ltd v. Rawlins reinforces the principle that privately-owned spaces, even those open to the public like shopping centers, are still subject to the control of the property owners. This case supports property owners’ rights to exclude individuals and restrict activities on their premises. It highlighted that public access to private spaces does not equate to a public forum for free expression unless otherwise agreed by the property owners. This case is often referenced in discussions on the balance between property rights and freedom of expression, particularly concerning quasi-public spaces such as shopping centers.