Surrey County Council v Persons unknown who are Forming an Unauthorised Encampment on the Land known as Chobham Common as Shaded in red on the Plan at Schedule 1 to the Claim form

Hearing date: 23 January 2026

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 12pm on 2 February 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Aidan Eardley KC:

On Friday 23 January 2026 I granted an injunction in favour of the Claimant, Surrey County Council ( the Council) against two defined groups of “persons unknown”. These are my reasons.

The claim and the application

The Council filed a Part 8 Claim Form and an Application Notice on 19 January 2026. The Council seeks an injunction to prohibit unauthorised encampments and fly tipping in respect of four land titles which, for the purposes of this claim, are referred to collectively as “Chobham Common” (or the Common). The Common is situated in the north of Surrey and extends slightly beyond the county boundary. It is known for its important ecological significance and recreational value. The Council owns the freehold of the part of the Common that lies beyond the county boundary. The four land titles are:

i) SY676014 (Land at Chobham Common and Burrowhill). The freehold title to this land is held by the Council. The land is registered common land;

ii) SY676315 (Common Land at Chobham Common, Woking). The freehold title to this land is held by the Council. The land is registered common land;

iii) SY779824 (Land on the northeast side of Windsor Road, Chobham). The freehold title to this land is held by the Council. The land is not yet registered common land, and has come to be included within the Common by way of a common land exchange following the construction of the M3 motorway. The commons registration process is underway. The land is treated by the Council in the same way as the registered Common, and the land has all the appearance of being comprised within the Common;

iv) SY723895 (Glovers Pond, Chobham Common). The freehold title to this land is held by the Surrey Wildlife Trust. The land is landlocked by other land comprising the Common, the freehold title to which is held by the Council (title no. SY676315). The land is registered common land.

Injunctions have been in force in relation to areas (i) and (ii) since 2019. The current injunction, granted in February 2023, is due to expire on or about 1 February 2026. In November 2023, in Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47, [2024] 2 WLR 45 ( Wolverhampton) the Supreme Court comprehensively restated the law and procedure applicable to so-called “Traveller injunctions”. The Council accepts that it is appropriate to bring a fresh claim and application for a Wolverhampton-compliant injunction rather than to extend the injunction granted in 2023. At the same time, the Council seeks to include areas (iii) and (iv).

I read the witness statements of Nicholas Blackmore (a Council employee with the title “Senior Enforcement Officer – Gypsy, Roma and Traveller and Technical”) and James Herd, Director of Reserves Management for the Surrey Wildlife Trust. I accept their evidence and rely on it for my summary of the factual background and other matters below. I was also greatly assisted by the skeleton argument and oral submissions of Ms Pratt, for the Council. She properly drew my attention to facts and matters that might count against the grant of an injunction, or aspects of its terms, thereby fulfilling the Council's obligation of full and frank disclosure.

Factual background

The Common is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Grade 1 Nature Conservation Review Site and a National Nature Reserve. It is part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Common Special Area of Conservation. It is ecologically rich and diverse, supporting a number of protected species of plants and animals. It is much valued by dog walkers, horse riders, cyclists, model aircraft enthusiasts and anglers, attracting 250,000–300,000 visitors per year, most of them from within a 5 mile radius. Visitors express the wish that the Common should retain its current open, natural and wild character. The Common is managed on behalf of the Council by the Surrey Wildlife Trust.

The Council first sought injunctive relief in 2019 because unauthorised encampments had been forming with increasing frequency and were becoming increasingly large. Between 11 May 2018 and February 2019 there were 10 unauthorised encampments, four of which comprised 14 or more caravans and associated vehicles. Many encampments remained in situ for several days. On 5 occasions, the Council had to obtain orders under s78 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and its costs of securing the eviction of the encampments and cleaning up came to £51,713.

The 2019 injunction (which ran to 11 November 2022) proved effective. Only one, single-vehicle, encampment occurred on the Common during that time (in April 2022) and its occupants moved on after being informed of the injunction. Meanwhile however, unauthorised encampments continued to occur elsewhere in Surrey. Surrey Police recorded 104 in 2020, 79 in 2021 and 30 in 2022 up to 5 June of that year.

In light of the continuing risks of encampments on the Common, the Council sought another injunction which was granted in February 2023 for a period of 3 years. The 2023 injunction was also effective. On 17 August 2023 a large encampment of around 20 caravans set up on the Common (having gained access by damaging a gate). Mr Blackmore attended and served the injunction on the occupants and explained its terms and effect. As a result, the occupants swiftly moved on.

Meanwhile, unauthorised encampments occurred with high frequency elsewhere in the county, with the police recording 80 in 2023, 77 in 2024 and 62 in 2025.

Encampments create the risk of various harmful consequences, including damage to the infrastructure (gates etc) and the depositing of waste. In the past, the depositing of waste on the Common has included not just human and domestic waste from the occupants of the encampments but the fly-tipping of commercial waste. Mr Blackwood explains that it is unclear whether such fly-tipping was done by the same people who were responsible for the encampments. Such waste is not just unsightly. Mr Herd explains the particular risks that it poses to the flora and fauna of the Common and the health of the members of the public who visit the Common for recreation. The injunctions in place since 2019 appear to have been effective in preventing fly-tipping.

The Council maintains 17 permanent Gypsy, Roma and Traveller sites across the county. There are no other Traveller injunctions in place in the county.

Notice of the claim and application

Technically, an injunction against a defined class of “persons unknown” who are “newcomers” (i.e. people who are not identifiable as parties at the time when an injunction is granted) is sought and granted on a without notice basis: Wolverhampton at [14], [139], [142] & [143(ii)]. Nevertheless, a claimant is obliged to take all reasonable steps to bring the proceedings to the attention of those who are likely to be affected by the injunction: Wolverhampton at [167(ii) & [226]–[229].

Here, the Council has publicised its claim and application by posting copies of the (unsealed) Claim Form and Application Notice, along with a draft order and notice, at all vehicular and pedestrian access points to the Common. The same materials were sent to the 3 representative organisations for Travellers and Gypsies who were parties to the Wolverhampton case as well as the Surrey Gypsy Traveller Communities Forum (I describe this organisation further below). The notice that was displayed around the Common and sent to these organisations directed readers to a dedicated “injunctions” page on the Council's Website where the supporting evidence could be viewed. Notice was also given on the Council's Facebook and X accounts. These steps were taken variously on 12 and 13 January. Unfortunately, the Court only notified the Council of the hearing date on the afternoon of 22 January 2026 (with the hearing to commence at 10.30 on 23 January 2026). Thereafter, the Council updated the injunctions page on its website to include the hearing details.

I was told that the Council had received only one expression of interest in the proceedings – a communication from a local parish council that was supportive of the application.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Council has complied with its duty to take all reasonable steps to notify those who might be affected by the application. There are generous liberty to apply provisions in the order I have made which will enable anyone who was unaware of the application to make representations and seek its discharge or variation.

Basis of the application

The Council invites the Court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief where it is just and convenient to do so, now reflected in s37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Recognising that the jurisdiction must be exercised in a principled way, the Council points to three legal rights or prohibitions in support of which it says the...