Key Facts
- •The appeal concerns conjoined cases where local authorities sought injunctions against unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller encampments, naming defendants as "persons unknown."
- •Injunctions were granted against unidentified individuals who had not yet infringed any rights, but might do so in the future ("newcomers").
- •The issue has wider significance beyond Gypsy and Traveller encampments, including industrial picketing and online activities.
- •Nicklin J held that interim injunctions against persons unknown were permissible, but final injunctions only against identified parties.
- •The Court of Appeal overturned Nicklin J's decision, stating that courts can grant final injunctions preventing unidentified persons from occupying land.
- •The appeal to the Supreme Court questions the principled basis for injunctions binding newcomers.
Legal Principles
The High Court has unlimited power to grant injunctions, subject to statutory restrictions and equitable principles.
Section 37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981
Injunctions generally bind only parties to the proceedings, but exceptions exist (e.g., representative proceedings, wardship, protection of human rights).
Equitable principles and case law
An injunction need not always be based on an existing cause of action against the person enjoined.
Case law, particularly Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson and Broad Idea International Ltd
Proceedings can be commenced against unidentified defendants under certain circumstances (CPR Part 8, Practice Directions).
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), Practice Directions
A person cannot be made subject to court jurisdiction without notice enabling them to be heard (exceptions exist).
Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd
Equity looks to substance over form and is flexible in developing remedies to meet new circumstances.
Equitable principles and case law (e.g., Spry, Equitable Remedies)
Outcomes
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The court held that there is jurisdiction to grant injunctions against newcomers, but this power must be exercised judiciously, considering various factors (compelling need, procedural safeguards, proportionality, etc.).
The Court's reasoning differs from the Court of Appeal, but the ultimate orders made were deemed correct.
The Supreme Court rejects the 'Gammell solution' (that breach constitutes automatic party status) and instead classifies newcomer injunctions as without-notice orders, requiring specific safeguards for fairness.