London Borough of Havering v William Stokes & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2496 (KB)
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Shane Heron & Ors
7 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1653 (KB)
High Court
A town had a problem with illegal traveller camps causing damage and mess. The court gave the town an order to stop future camps, and to fine or arrest anyone who set one up. The order is only for certain places and is for only one year, unless they ask for it to be renewed. The court had to find a balance between helping the town and protecting the rights of travellers.
Key Facts
- •Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council sought injunctive relief against 51 named defendants and two categories of persons unknown for unauthorized encampments and waste disposal.
- •Between 2015 and 2017, Rochdale experienced 133 unauthorized encampments, causing significant environmental damage and costs.
- •The council sought a borough-wide injunction against named defendants and a site-specific injunction against persons unknown (334 sites).
- •The case was impacted by the Supreme Court's decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47.
- •The council argued that other enforcement methods were ineffective.
Legal Principles
The High Court may grant injunctions if it is just and convenient.
Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37
Local planning authorities can seek injunctions for actual or apprehended breaches of planning control.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 187B
Local authorities can bring proceedings to protect the interests of their inhabitants.
Local Government Act 1972, section 222
Injunctions against newcomer persons unknown are permissible if there is a compelling need, procedural protections, and it is just and convenient.
Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47
Precautionary injunctions (quia timet) require a strong possibility of infringement, inadequacy of damages, and inability of other measures to prevent harm.
Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456
Outcomes
Five-year injunction granted against named defendants.
No defense was offered, and the council demonstrated the need to prevent breaches of planning control and nuisance.
One-year injunction granted against persons unknown, applying to 334 specific sites.
The court found a compelling need, considered alternative measures ineffective, and implemented procedural safeguards as per Wolverhampton.
Power of arrest attached to both injunctions.
The court deemed it necessary for effective enforcement, particularly against persons unknown, due to the significant risk of harm.
Similar Cases
Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others
[2023] UKSC 47
The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2252 (KB)
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2064 (KB)
Buckinghamshire Council v Jimmy Barrett & Ors
[2024] EWHC 140 (KB)