The court has power to grant injunctions against unknown persons or newcomers who at the date of grant have not yet performed – or even threatened to perform – the acts which the injunction prohibits. Such power should only be exercised where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or enforce public law where other available remedies are inadequate and subject to procedural safeguards designed to protect newcomers’ rights.
In Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47; [2023] PLSCS 197 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by those representing Gypsies and Travellers and clarified the court’s powers.
The case concerned a number of conjoined cases in which local authorities sought injunctions to prevent unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers who were unidentifiable when the injunctions were sought and granted and described as “persons unknown”. Between 2015 and 2020, 38 local authorities had obtained such injunctions without notice and at hearings where Gypsies and Travellers were not represented.
The Supreme Court was satisfied that the court’s jurisdiction to grant injunctions is unlimited, subject to any relevant statutory restrictions. Injunctions can be granted in new circumstances when required by the principles of justice and equity. Newcomer injunctions are a valuable and proportionate remedy in appropriate cases.
The grant of a newcomer injunction in the context of trespass and breach of planning control will likely require an applicant to:
1. demonstrate a compelling need to protect civil rights or enforce public laws which are not adequately met by any other available remedies;
2. build into the application and order sought procedural safeguards for newcomers. Such protections are likely to include:
i. widely advertising an application so that those likely to be affected – or bodies representing their interests – are given a fair opportunity to make representations before the injunction is made;
ii. displaying the order in a prominent location at the affected site;
iii. clearly notifying newcomers who become aware of the order of their right to apply to court to have it varied or set aside, without having to show that circumstances have changed; and
iv. temporal and geographical limits on the scope of the order to ensure that it is proportionate.
3. Comply with a strict duty requiring them to disclose to the court any matter which a newcomer might raise to oppose the making of the order; and
4. satisfy the court that, on the particular facts of the case, it is just and convenient that a newcomer injunction is granted.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
