Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47

Local authorities sought injunctions against unidentified Gypsies and Travellers to prevent unauthorised encampments. The Supreme Court held that courts have jurisdiction to grant 'newcomer injunctions' binding persons unknown at the time of the order, subject to compelling justification and procedural safeguards including advertisement of applications and liberty to apply for discharge.

Facts

Between 2015 and 2020, 38 local authorities sought injunctions against unidentified persons described as ‘persons unknown’ to prohibit unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers within their administrative areas. The claims were brought under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, relying on provisions including section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. The defendants could not be identified at the time proceedings were commenced. Following a review initiated by Nicklin J, issues arose regarding whether courts could grant final injunctions binding persons who were not parties when the order was made (‘newcomers’).

Issues

Principal Issues

1. Whether courts have power to grant injunctions binding newcomers who are not identifiable parties at the time the order is granted.

2. Whether there is a meaningful distinction between interim and final injunctions in this context.

3. What procedural safeguards are required to ensure fairness to those affected by such injunctions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that courts have jurisdiction to grant ‘newcomer injunctions’ against persons unknown, whether interim or final in form. Such injunctions operate in substance contra mundum and bind anyone with notice while in force.

The powers of courts with equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions are, subject to any relevant statutory restrictions, unlimited. Injunctions are granted only when to do so accords with equitable principles, but this restriction involves, not a defect of powers, but an adoption of doctrines and practices that change in their application from time to time.

The Court rejected the reasoning in Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown that final injunctions could not bind newcomers. Lords Reed, Briggs and Kitchin (with whom Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones agreed) held that newcomer injunctions are analogous to other orders operating contra mundum, such as wardship orders, Venables-type injunctions protecting identity, and reporting restrictions.

When granting an injunction the court does not contemplate that it will be disobeyed.

The Court criticised the ‘Gammell solution’ whereby persons become defendants by breaching the injunction, observing this had the ‘novel feature – which would have appealed to Lewis Carroll – that it became binding upon a person only because that person was already in breach of it.’

Conditions for Grant

The Court identified conditions that must be satisfied:

• Compelling need for protection of rights not adequately met by other measures
• Procedural protection for affected newcomers including advertisement of applications and liberty to apply for variation or discharge
• Compliance with full disclosure duties
• Temporal and geographical limitations ensuring proportionality
• Just and convenient in all circumstances

Implications

This decision significantly clarifies the law on injunctions against persons unknown, establishing that such orders are a legitimate exercise of equitable jurisdiction when properly safeguarded. The judgment has implications beyond Traveller cases, extending to protesters, intellectual property infringement, and online wrongdoing. The Court emphasised that local authorities must demonstrate compelling justification, consider alternative remedies including byelaws and statutory powers, and comply with enhanced disclosure obligations. Injunctions should generally not exceed one year without review or extend borough-wide. The decision represents an important development in equitable remedies, recognising that the flexibility of equity permits adaptation to new circumstances while maintaining procedural fairness.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that courts have jurisdiction to grant newcomer injunctions binding persons unknown at the date of the order, subject to compelling justification and appropriate procedural safeguards.

Source: Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47