The Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in the case of Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether, injunctions (a court order that requires the persons to whom it is addressed to do or refrain from doing a specified act) obtained by local authorities to prevent unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers, could be extended to include persons who are unknown and unidentified at the date the injunction was granted. These people are known as “Newcomers”.

A number of such injunctions (“Newcomer Injunctions”) were granted by the courts between 2015 and 2020. The injunctions were addressed to “persons unknown” because the gypsies and travellers who might wish to camp on a particular site could not generally be identified in advance.  The local authorities obtained the injunctions without notifying any other party and generally the interests of gypsies and travellers were not represented.

From Mid--2020 the local authorities made applications to extend or vary injunctions which were coming to an end. After a hearing in one of these cases, the High Court Judge, decided there was a need to review all injunctions affecting Gypsies and Travellers addressed to persons unknown because potentially these injunctions are granted without prior notice against persons who cannot be known at the time the order is made, and they therefore potentially apply to anyone in the world.  The High Court Judge following the review hearing decided that the Court did not have power to grant Newcomer Injunctions except on a short-term interim basis because, amongst other issues, there was a problem with identifying to which group or groups of people they applied.  The matter was referred on appeal to the Court of Appeal who held that the Court had the power to grant such injunctions and the matter was further appealed to the Supreme Court by groups representing the interests of Gypsies and Travellers.

In confirming the court’s ability to grant injunctions against Newcomers, the Supreme Court reasoned that injunctions against Newcomers are generally made where the affected Gypsies and Travellers are unlikely to have any right or liberty to set up unauthorised encampments on the relevant local authority land and the local authorities are therefore enforcing their rights in situations where there is no real dispute to be resolved. In most instances, the original group will have left by the time the injunction has been granted and replaced by others, against whom the proceedings would have no effect. In these circumstances, Newcomer Injunctions provide an effective means of enforcing the local authorities’ rights and this should not just be confined to a short term and interim basis pending a trial.  

The Supreme Court reiterated however that although a Newcomer Injunction is a valuable and proportionate remedy in appropriate cases, each case must be looked at on its own merits.  Where Newcomer Injunctions are granted, the Supreme Court was keen to suggest that they should be advertised widely and displayed prominently at the affected site. They must be limited wherever possible in terms of length and geographical location so as to remain a proportionate approach to the harm to be potentially suffered.  Local authorities also remain under a duty to report to the court any new matters which come to light which may impact the court’s decision to grant or extend a Newcomer Injunction.

If you'd like assistance in relation to the issues raised please do contact Liz Turner at lturner@ortolan.com