London Borough of Havering v William Stokes

Hearing date: Monday 6 October 2025

(Judgment sent in draft: Thursday 9 October 2025)

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 2 p.m. on 13 October 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Mr Jonathan Glasson KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT:

The Claimant is the council and local planning authority for the borough of Havering (“the Borough”) which covers some 44 square miles in the north-east of Greater London. The Claimant has applied, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Order of Eyre J dated 3 October 2024 (“the Injunction”), for the renewal of that order for a further period of 12 months as against Persons Unknown.

At the hearing of the application, the Claimant was represented by Ms Natalie Pratt of counsel. None of the Defendants were represented although the London Gypsy and Travellers Group submitted a letter in advance of the hearing (see further below at [13]–[16]).

For the purposes of the hearing, I was provided with an extensive bundle of evidence as well as a bundle of authorities. Ms Pratt submitted a detailed set of written submissions in advance of the hearing and also made oral submissions at the hearing. I am grateful to her for her considerable assistance.

The judgment is divided into the following sections:

a) The background

b) The letter from London Gypsies and Travellers (“LGT”)

c) The application for relief from sanctions in respect of Sensitive Site 300

d) The evidence for this renewal hearing

e) The legal framework

f) Discussion and decision

(A) THE BACKGROUND

The Injunction was made following Eyre J's judgment which is reported at London Borough of Havering v Stokes & Ors [2024] EWHC 2496 (KB), “ the Eyre J Judgment”.

In summary, the Injunction was not borough-wide against Persons Unknown but applied to 306 specific sites (described in the Injunction as the “ Sensitive Sites”) in the Borough which equated to just under 23% of the land in the Borough. The Sensitive Sites were selected by the Claimant as being those that were frequently targeted by unauthorised encampments visiting the Borough. They were identified as being particularly vulnerable and included parks and open spaces, school grounds, retail sites and car parks: see [65] of the Eyre J Judgment.

A power of arrest was attached to the prohibitions only in relation to two Named Defendants (the Fourth and Sixteenth Defendants); no power of arrest was granted in relation to Persons Unknown.

The factual background that led to the making of the Injunction is set out at [14] – [25] of the Eyre J judgment. At [15] Eyre J explained:

“ The Claimant's concern is not primarily with traveller encampments without more. Instead its particular concern is with those of such encampments as are associated with commercial fly-tipping and/or forcible entry to property and in particular those of such encampments as are associated with aggression on the part of the occupiers to others. It is important to keep in mind at all times that, as the Claimant expressly recognises, to the extent that those who engage in such behaviour are members of the Traveller or Gypsy communities they form a small and non-representative minority in such groups.”

The Injunction was made against 43 named defendants up to and including 19 October 2025 and is due to expire as against those defendants at 00:00 hours on 20 October 2025. The Claimant has made no application in respect of those defendants but has applied for the Injunction to be extended for a further period of one year in relation to the defined category of Persons Unknown. As with the Injunction in respect of the named defendants that aspect of the order of Eyre J is also due to expire at 00:00 hrs on 20 October 2025.

“Persons Unknown” in the draft order that is being sought by the Claimant are defined as “ persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments within the London Borough of Havering”.

The application before me related to slightly fewer Sensitive Sites than in the Injunction, some 291 Sensitive Sites. The Claimant does not seek an order in respect of Sensitve Site numbers 27, 51, 133, 151, 155, 268, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 295, 301, 302 and 304 in the Injunction.

As with the Injunction, the order that the Claimant seeks forbids Persons Unknown forming an Encampment on the Sensitive Sites or any part of the Sensitive Sites within the London Borough of Havering unless certain conditions have been met:

(a) Written Permission from the Local Planning Authority; or

(b) planning permission granted by the Secretary of State; or

(c) it is in accordance with statutory permitted development rights; or

(d) having secured written consent from the landowner of the relevant Sensitive Site, and without having given the Local Planning Authority 2 working days' written notice of the intention to stop on the site by giving notice to the Claimant's Enforcement & Community Safety Team.

B) The Letter From LGT

In the early hours of 6 October 2025, the Public Interest Law Centre sent to me direct a letter on behalf of LGT, a charitable NGO who were ordered to be served with proceedings relating to injunctions against persons unknown by the Supreme Court in the case of Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] 2 WLR 45 (“ Wolverhampton”). I directed that the KB Listing Office should return the letter to the solicitors referring them to the provisions of CPR 39.9 that provides that all communications with the Court should be copied to the parties (see R (Jasseh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 47 (Admin), [23]). The letter was subsequently resubmitted and copied to the Claimant.

In the letter LGT explained that they had requested the Claimant to agree that these proceedings should be joined with the case of Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond of Thames (KB-2024-003315). The Claimant declined to agree to that proposal, pointing out that these proceedings were at a very different stage from Richmond's which had been issued after the Supreme Court's judgment in Wolverhampton. There was then a subsequent request for the Claimant to confirm that it would not seek its costs against LGT in the event that they applied to be heard at the hearing before me. The Claimant indicated that it would be neutral as to whether permission to intervene should be granted and it would only seek costs if the application required an adjournment.

In the event the LGT did not make an application to be heard at the hearing because they were unable to obtain the services of counsel sufficiently experienced in this area.

In the letter from Public Interest Law Centre, the LGT requested that the order contained a liberty to apply provision to enable them to make an application to vary any order made at a future date. I have taken into account LGT's letter and note that the draft Order being sought has provision by which the Defendants or anyone notified of the Order may each of them apply to the court on 72 hours written notice to both the court and the Claimant (without prejudice to the right of that person to apply to shorten the time for written notice) to vary or discharge this Order or so much as if it affects that person. I will direct that the Order which I make should be notified to LGT accordingly.

(C) Application for relief from sanctions

Sensitive Site 300 was only served on 1 October 2025 as it had been overlooked by the Claimant. An application was made during the course of the hearing (with written notice filed later that day) for relief from sanctions.

Applying the three-stage test in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the Claimant accepted that the breach of the order requiring service was serious and significant. The reasons advanced for the default were, as I have explained, that it was an oversight by the Claimant. Any prejudice to Unknown Persons that might be affected by the failure to serve that Sensitive Site could be cured by suspending the operation of the injunction as it affects that site for 28 days. That was the course adopted by Garnham J where there was a similar defect in service in respect of one site in Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 (KB) (“ Rochdale”): see [5] and [81] of that judgment.

Having considered the three stage Denton test, I will grant relief from sanctions but, as in Rochdale, the appropriate and proportionate response to this defect in service is to suspend the operation of the injunction as it affects Sensitive Site 300 for 28 days.

(D) The Factual Background

For the purposes of this application the Claimant filed a number of witness statements:

(a) A witness statement from Ms Mandeep Mehat. Ms Mehat is a solicitor employed by OneSource Legal Services and is the Head of Law Enforcement and Litigation.

(b) Witness statements from Ms Jane Eastaff, the Claimant's Enforcement Manager.

(a) A witness statement from Ms Jill Warren, Deputy Team Leader in the Development Planning section in the Planning Department at the London Borough of Havering.

(b) A witness statement from Acting Chief Inspector Charlie Routley. He is the Acting Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police in the Havering Safer Neighbourhoods Team, East Area BCU. His Team...