Wolverhampton City Council and Others v London Gypsies and Travellers and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reed,Lord Briggs,Lord Kitchin,Lord Hodge,Lord Lloyd-Jones |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] UKSC 47 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
[2023] UKSC 47
Lord Reed, President
Lord Hodge, Deputy President
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lord Briggs
Lord Kitchin
Appellants
Richard Drabble KC
Marc Willers KC
Tessa Buchanan
Owen Greenhall
(Instructed by Community Law Partnership (Birmingham))
1 st Respondent
Mark Anderson KC
Michelle Caney
(Instructed by Wolverhampton City Council Legal Services)
2 nd Respondent
Nigel Giffin KC
Simon Birks
(Instructed by Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Legal Services)
3 rd to 10 th Respondents
Caroline Bolton
Natalie Pratt
(Instructed by Sharpe Pritchard LLP and London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Legal Services)
1 st Intervener
Stephanie Harrison KC
Stephen Clark
Fatima Jichi
(Instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen LLP)
2 nd Intervener
Jude Bunting KC
Marlena Valles
(Instructed by Liberty)
3 rd and 4 th Interveners
Richard Kimblin KC
Michael Fry
(Instructed by HS2 Ltd Legal Department and the Government Legal Department)
Appellants
(1) London Gypsies and Travellers
(2) Friends, Families and Travellers
(3) Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group
Respondents
(1) Wolverhampton City Council
(2) Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
(3) London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
(4) Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Hampshire County Council
(5) London Borough of Redbridge
(6) London Borough of Havering
(7) Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council and Warwickshire County Council
(8) Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
(9) Test Valley Borough Council and Hampshire County Council
(10) Thurrock Council
(11) Persons unknown
Interveners
(1) Friends of the Earth
(2) Liberty
(3) High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd
(4) Secretary of State for Transport
Heard on 8 and 9 February 2023
Lord Reed, Lord Briggs AND Lord Kitchin ( with whom Lord Hodge and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree):
This appeal concerns a number of conjoined cases in which injunctions were sought by local authorities to prevent unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. Since the members of a group of Gypsies or Travellers who might in future camp in a particular place cannot generally be identified in advance, few if any of the defendants to the proceedings were identifiable at the time when the injunctions were sought and granted. Instead, the defendants were described in the claim forms as “persons unknown”, and the injunctions similarly enjoined “persons unknown”. In some cases, there was no further description of the defendants in the claim form, and the court's order contained no further information about the persons enjoined. In other cases, the defendants were described in the claim form by reference to the conduct which the claimants sought to have prohibited, and the injunctions were addressed to persons who behaved in the manner from which they were ordered to refrain.
In these circumstances, the appeal raises the question whether (and if so, on what basis, and subject to what safeguards) the court has the power to grant an injunction which binds persons who are not identifiable at the time when the order is granted, and who have not at that time infringed or threatened to infringe any right or duty which the claimant seeks to enforce, but may do so at a later date: “newcomers”, as they have been described in these proceedings.
Although the appeal arises in the context of unlawful encampments by Gypsies and Travellers, the issues raised have a wider significance. The availability of injunctions against newcomers has become an increasingly important issue in many contexts, including industrial picketing, environmental and other protests, breaches of confidence, breaches of intellectual property rights, and a wide variety of unlawful activities related to social media. The issue is liable to arise whenever there is a potential conflict between the maintenance of private or public rights and the future behaviour of individuals who cannot be identified in advance. Recent years have seen a marked increase in the incidence of applications for injunctions of this kind. The advent of the internet, enabling wrongdoers to violate private or public rights behind a veil of anonymity, has also made the availability of injunctions against unidentified persons an increasingly significant question. If injunctions are available only against identifiable individuals, then the anonymity of wrongdoers operating online risks conferring upon them an immunity from the operation of the law.
Reflecting the wide significance of the issues in the appeal, the court has heard submissions not only from the appellants, who are bodies representing the interests of Gypsies and Travellers, and the respondents, who are local authorities, but also from interveners with a particular interest in the law relating to protests: Friends of the Earth, Liberty, and (acting jointly) the Secretary of State for Transport and High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd.
The appeal arises from judgments given by Nicklin J and the Court of Appeal on what were in substance preliminary issues of law. The appeal is accordingly concerned with matters of legal principle, rather than with whether it was or was not appropriate for injunctions to be granted in particular circumstances. It is, however, necessary to give a brief account of the factual and procedural background.
Between 2015 and 2020, 38 different local authorities or groups of local authorities sought injunctions against unidentified and unknown persons, which in broad terms prohibited unauthorised encampments within their administrative areas or on specified areas of land within those areas. The claims were brought under the procedure laid down in Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (“CPR”), which is appropriate where the claimant seeks the court's decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact: CPR rule 8.1(2). The claimants relied upon a number of statutory provisions, including section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, under which the court can grant an injunction to restrain an actual or apprehended breach of planning control, and in some cases also upon common law causes of action, including trespass to land.
The claim forms fell into two broad categories. First, there were claims directed against defendants described simply as “persons unknown”, either alone or together with named defendants. Secondly, there were claims against unnamed defendants who were described, in almost all cases, by reference to the future activities which the claimant sought to prevent, either alone or together with named defendants. Examples included “persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments within the Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth”, “persons unknown entering or remaining without planning consent on those parcels of land coloured in schedule 2 of the draft order”, and “persons unknown who enter and/or occupy any of the locations listed in this order for residential purposes (whether temporary or otherwise) including siting caravans, mobile homes, associated vehicles and domestic paraphernalia”.
In most cases, the local authorities obtained an order for service of the claim forms by alternative means under CPR rule 6.15, usually by fixing copies in a prominent location at each site, or by fixing there a copy of the injunction with a notice that the claim form could be obtained from the claimant's offices. Injunctions were obtained, invariably on without notice applications where the defendants were unnamed, and were similarly displayed. They contained a variety of provisions concerning review or liberty to apply. Some injunctions were of fixed duration. Others had no specified end date. Some were expressed to be interim injunctions. Others were agreed or held by Nicklin J to be final injunctions. Some had a power of arrest attached, meaning that any person who acted contrary to the injunction was liable to immediate arrest.
As we have explained, the injunctions were addressed in some cases simply to “persons unknown”, and in other cases to persons described by reference to the activities from which they were required to refrain: for example, “persons unknown occupying the sites listed in this order”. The respondents were among the local authorities who obtained such injunctions.
From around mid-2020, applications were made in some of the claims to extend or vary injunctions of fixed duration which were nearing their end. After a hearing in one such case, Nicklin J decided, with the concurrence of the President of the Queen's Bench Division and the Judge in Charge of the Queen's Bench Civil List, that there was a need for review of all such injunctions. After case management, in the course of which many of the claims were discontinued, there remained 16 local authorities (or groups of local authorities) actively pursuing claims. The appellants were given permission to intervene. A hearing was then fixed at which four issues of principle were to be determined. Following the hearing, Nicklin J determined those issues: Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB); [2022] JPL 43.
Putting the matter broadly at this stage, Nicklin J concluded, in the light particularly of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 303; [2020] 1 WLR 2802 (“ Canada Goose”), that interim injunctions could be granted against persons unknown, but that final injunctions could be granted only against parties who had been identified and had had an opportunity to contest the final order sought. If the relevant local authority could identify anyone in the category of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
"Stay Off My Land' Whoever You Are" ' Supreme Court Appeal On Newcomer Injunctions
...the Supreme Court decision so important? The recent Supreme Court decision of Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47on newcomer injunctions allows landowners to apply for both interim and final injunctions against 'persons unknown' to prevent unlawful This means tha......