Wensley & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

Registered proprietors are entitled to possession of land occupied by trespassers and may obtain a declaration confirming that entitlement. On an interim injunction application, the court asks whether there is a serious issue to be tried and where the balance of convenience lies. Damages may be inadequate where trespassers are difficult to identify, loss is difficult to quantify or enforcement would be problematic. An injunction may be granted against persons unknown identified by description, but an injunction of unlimited duration requires separate consideration. Injunctions restraining entry or trespass must also respect the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention.

The claimants brought a possession claim concerning land at Plumpton Hall Farm and adjoining land near Blackpool. The land had been occupied by anti-fracking protestors, and there were concerns about further trespass on neighbouring land and at Roseacre Hall Farm.

The claimants sought possession, interim and permanent injunctive relief, declarations, damages and costs. At the first hearing, the occupation had apparently ceased. A named defendant sought an adjournment to provide evidence, which the court granted. The central issues were whether possession and declaratory relief should be granted immediately, whether interim relief against persons unknown was appropriate, and how broadly that relief should be framed.

1. Possession and declaration. The first and second claimants were the registered proprietors of the occupied land and were clearly entitled to possession. The court therefore made a possession order and declared their entitlement to possession of the land within title number LAN679804.
2. Interim injunction. The claimants had established a serious issue to be tried. No person was entitled to enter the land without consent, an enforceable property right or a public right of way. Damages were inadequate because trespassers might be difficult to identify, damage to farmland was difficult to quantify, and enforcement of any damages award might be problematic. The balance of convenience favoured interim injunctive relief.
3. Persons unknown and duration. The court had jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction against persons identified only by description. Hampshire Waste Services Ltd v Intending Trespassers upon Chineham Incinerator Site [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), reported at [2004] Environmental Law Reports 9, was distinguishable because it concerned an imminent, defined day of action. The propriety of an injunction unlimited in time was left for the return hearing. The interim injunction would continue until then.
4. Convention rights and declarations. The court declined to include a prohibition on instructing or encouraging third parties to trespass. Such wording could have wide effects on expression, including social-media communications, engaging Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention. The wider declaratory relief sought for land not covered by the possession order was also not granted, following the potential distinction from the observations of Lord Neuberger in Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs v Meier [2009] UKSC 11.
5. The order restrained entry, remaining, obstruction, impediment and interference with the claimants’ activities on the identified land in connection with anti-fracking, environmental or similar protests. The matter was adjourned to a return hearing with directions for evidence and service.

This was a first-instance hearing. The proceedings were issued in the Blackpool County Court, transferred to Manchester County Court, and then transferred of the court’s own initiative to the Chancery Division of the High Court.