Newcomers — can courts grant final injunctions that prevent persons, who are unidentified, from occupying land?

On 29 November 2023 the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the case of Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others.

Who are so-called newcomers?

Newcomers is a term for unidentified and unknown persons who may set up unauthorised encampments on local authority land. The unknown persons may describe themselves as Romani Gypsies, Irish Travellers and New Travellers.

38 local authorities have obtained a number of interim injunctions and then final injunctions between 2015 and 2020 against newcomers designed to prevent Gypsies and Travellers from camping on local authority land without permission. At the time the injunctions were granted, the Newcomers had not yet camped, or threatened to camp on local authority land, so injunctions were addressed to ‘persons unknown’. The injunctions were granted without notifying other parties and the interests of Gypsies and Travellers had not been represented. Once obtained, copies of the injunctions were displayed on relevant sites.

Wolverhampton CC v London Gypsies and Travellers

The appellants in this case represent the London Gypsies and Travellers, the respondents represent the councils.

The High Court discharged an injunction order in favour of Wolverhampton CC obtained in 2018. Following a review, it was determined that final injunctions could not apply against newcomers who were not parties to proceedings at the date the injunction was ordered, except on a short-term, interim basis. The court gave the appellants representing the Gypsies and Travellers permission to intervene so that their interests could be represented. A series of orders were made discharging newcomer injunctions obtained by local authorities.

The case reached the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal brought by Wolverhampton County Council and reinstated the previous injunction order.

The Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court had to determine whether courts have the power to grant injunctions against persons who are unknown and unidentified at the date of granting the injunction and who has not yet set up encampment or threatened to.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appellants’ appeal, holding that the court has the required power. However, it was held that:

• this power can only be exercised where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or enforce public law that is not already adequately met by other remedies.,
• as newcomers are not notified, injunctions should only be made subject to procedural safeguards to protect newcomers’ rights. This involves advertising widely so that those affected are given a fair opportunity to make representations before the injunction is granted and once it is granted, the newcomer’s right to apply to court to have it varied or set aside must be advertised clearly,
• applicant local authorities will be obliged to comply with a strict duty which requires them to disclose to the court any matter which a newcomer might raise to oppose the making of the order, due to the fact that newcomers’ interests are not represented in the hearing, and
• newcomer injunctions must not be for a disproportionately long time period or wide geographical area.

Reasons for the decision

The Supreme Court decided that newcomer injunctions are generally granted in circumstances where the affected Gypsies or Travellers are unlikely to have any right to set up encampment on the area in question. They are designed to prevent access where the usual process of eviction or injunction is inadequate, for example, when by the time proceedings are commenced, the original group will have left and been replaced by a new group, against whom the proceedings are of no effect.

It was highlighted that a court’s power to issue injunctions is unlimited due to the remedy’s equitable origin. However, they reminded courts that whilst newcomer injunctions are valuable and proportionate in appropriate cases, they should not be granted in every case, and courts must adhere to the conditions stated above.