In the Supreme Court case of Wolverhampton City Council and others (Respondents) v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] the court was asked whether they have the power to grant injunctions against persons who are unknown and unidentified at the date of the grant of the injunction, and who have not yet performed, or even threatened to perform, acts the injunction prohibits. These persons are known as “newcomers” and the injunctions made against them are called “newcomer injunctions”. When the Supreme Court handed down the judgment on 29 November 2023, it was described by Wolverhampton City Council as a “judgment of national importance”. 

Background 

Between 2015 and 2020, 38 different local authorities obtained injunctions designed to prevent Gypsies and Travellers from camping on local authority land without permission.

 The injunctions were addressed to “persons unknown” because the Gypsies and Travellers could not generally be identified in advance. When the injunctions were granted, these “persons unknown” or “newcomers” had not yet committed, or threatened to commit, any breach of planning control, trespass, or other relevant unlawful activity. The power of the courts to grant these injunctions was appealed to the highest court in England and Wales. 

  Supreme Court Judgment 

The Supreme Court held that the court has power to grant newcomer injunctions because its powers to grant injunctions is unlimited (subject to statutory restrictions). These are a wholly new form of injunction, which are granted without prior notice against persons who cannot be known at the time the order is made. Therefore, they can potentially apply to anyone in the world. 

 This means that injunctions may be granted in new circumstances as and when required by the principles of justice and equity which underpin them. That said, the Supreme Court clarified that these injunctions should only be granted in certain circumstances and subject to certain safeguards.  

  1. First, there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or enforce public law that is not adequately met by any other remedies. 
  2. Second, newcomer applications are made without notice. The applications need to be advertised widely so affected persons are given a fair opportunity to make representations. The injunction needs to be displayed in a prominent location at the affected site. 
  3. Third, the applicant must 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. 
  4. Fourth, newcomer injunctions should be limited so they do not apply for a disproportionately long time period or to a disproportionately wide geographical area. 
  5. Finally, the court must be satisfied that it is just and convenient that a newcomer injunction is granted. 

Concluding thoughts 

This is a welcomed decision as it helps to provide clarity on injunctions in the context of Gypsies and Travellers but also confirms that a newcomer injunction can be granted in other circumstances provided the conditions and safeguards have been satisfied. It also avoids, as the Supreme Court stated, the prospect of "litigation without end".

Therefore, it will be interesting to watch this space for further developments, see how this decision will impact protestor injunctions, and if private landowners will utilise newcomer injunctions on their private property.