Şenay Nihat
Partner
Barrister
Article
8
The recent Supreme Court decision of Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 on newcomer injunctions allows landowners to apply for both interim and final injunctions against 'persons unknown' to prevent unlawful occupation.
This means that unlawful occupation does not need to occur, or even be threatened at the time the landowner applies for the injunction. These injunction are made 'contra mundum' i.e. once ordered anyone will be bound, provided they have notice of the order. The landowner must prove certain facts within their application. However, this is likely to become an important tool to protect land from unwanted occupiers.
A "newcomer injunction" is a relatively new concept which enables landowners to bring an injunction against an unnamed party or 'persons unknown'.
It all began around 2015 when local authorities wanted to prevent Gypsies and Travellers from unlawfully setting up camp on their land. The local authorities could not use a normal injunction, i.e. an injunction with a named defendant because either:
To resolve this problem, local authorities pursued a different approach; and relied upon the following provisions of planning law and public law, to issue proceedings against 'persons unknown':
As such, 38 local councils issued proceedings against 'persons unknown'. Practically, this meant that these 'persons unknown' were not represented at the injunction hearings. The injunction was then issued 'without notice' and displayed at a prominent location on the land, to warn newcomers that the injunction was in place.
From mid-2020, the local authorities made a flurry of applications to either extend or vary these injunctions which were nearing their end, seeking final inunction orders. Due to the volume of applications, in one such application, Nicklin J decided there was a need to review newcomer injunctions as a whole and called in all the relevant cases to be managed together in the High Court.
In the High Court case of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors[2021] EWHC 1201 (QB), Nicklin J determined that interim injunctions could be granted against persons unknown. However, he determined that final injunctions could only be granted against parties who had been identified at the time of the final order and had an opportunity to contest the final order sought.
This meant that if the local authority could identify any one of the 'persons unknown' at the time of the final order, the final injunction would bind all those who could be identified. However, if the local authority could not identify anyone, the final order bound no one. The local authorities appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.
In the Court of Appeal decision of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors[2022] EWCA Civ 13 (where again the relevant cases were managed together), the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision. Sir Geoffrey Wos MR held that the High Court was wrong to state that the court could not grant final injunctions against persons who are not identified at the date of the final order. The Gypsies and Travellers subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
In the case of London Gypsies and Travellers v Wolverhampton City Council [2023] UKSC 47, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the court has the ability to grant an injunction to a 'newcomer' i.e. parties who are not named on the claim, other than on an interim basis.
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision. However, this was on slightly different reasoning. The Supreme Court determined that:
The Court acknowledged that issuing an injunction without notice is usually reserved for emergency situations. Therefore to ensure that the newcomers' rights are protected, the Supreme Court also outlined what landowners must prove to apply for a newcomer injunction. Landowners must:
Although the Supreme Court decision does allow newcomer injunctions to be granted on an interim or final basis to prevent behaviour that hasn't occurred or been threatened, it now imposes a higher threshold upon landowners for making such an application. Therefore, this remains a helpful tool for landowners, however it may result in additional work in preparing applications.
For any further questions about the points raised here or on newcomer injunctions, please contact Senay Nihat and Minerva Christiaan-Rakus.
CECI NE CONSTITUE PAS UN AVIS JURIDIQUE. L'information qui est présentée dans le site Web sous quelque forme que ce soit est fournie à titre informatif uniquement. Elle ne constitue pas un avis juridique et ne devrait pas être interprétée comme tel. Aucun utilisateur ne devrait prendre ou négliger de prendre des décisions en se fiant uniquement à ces renseignements, ni ignorer les conseils juridiques d'un professionnel ou tarder à consulter un professionnel sur la base de ce qu'il a lu dans ce site Web. Les professionnels de Gowling WLG seront heureux de discuter avec l'utilisateur des différentes options possibles concernant certaines questions juridiques précises.