Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Shane Heron & Ors

A newcomer injunction against persons unknown may be granted where the evidence establishes a compelling local need to protect civil rights, enforce planning control or prevent unlawful conduct, and other available measures are inadequate. The court must provide procedural safeguards, define the respondents and prohibited conduct precisely, and impose territorial and temporal limits proportionate to the identified harm. A local authority must consider lawful stopping places, reasonable alternatives and engagement with the affected community. For named defendants, the court may grant final injunctive relief where continued unlawful conduct is reasonably apprehended and an injunction is just and convenient. A power of arrest may be attached where the statutory conditions are met and it is the most effective enforcement mechanism.

The claimant local authority sought final injunctions against named defendants and two categories of persons unknown. The orders were intended to restrain unauthorised encampments, breaches of planning control, waste deposits and associated nuisance across specified sites in Rochdale. Interim relief had been granted in 2018, and the final hearing had been adjourned pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47.

The defendants did not participate. The issues were whether the statutory and equitable requirements for final injunctions were met, whether orders could properly be made against newcomer persons unknown, what territorial and temporal limits were required, and whether a power of arrest should be attached.

1. Persons unknown. The court granted a one-year injunction against persons unknown in substantially the sought terms. The claimant established a strong probability that, without an injunction, breaches of planning control and related unlawful conduct would continue and cause real harm. The evidence of past encampments, continuing incidents and experience in neighbouring boroughs demonstrated a compelling need.
2. The conditions in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 were satisfied. The claimant had provided and facilitated lawful stopping arrangements, had adopted engagement and toleration practices, and had considered other measures. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act powers were ineffective because encampments could relocate, enforcement was slow and costly, and harm could continue before enforcement.
3. The order included generous liberty to apply and notification provisions. It was limited to 334 specified sites, leaving most of the borough outside its scope, and was limited to one year with a review hearing at 50 weeks. The prohibitions were drafted in clear, everyday language and corresponded closely to unlawful conduct.
4. The injunction was just and convenient under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The precautionary-relief principles in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 were also satisfied. The threatened harm could not adequately be compensated by damages, particularly because the affected persons were unknown and the harm was suffered principally by local inhabitants.
5. Named defendants. A five-year final injunction was granted against the remaining named defendants. The reduction in unlawful conduct after the interim injunction was evidence that it had worked effectively, rather than a reason to refuse final relief. No specific hardship was shown which outweighed the claimant’s legitimate enforcement interests.
6. Power of arrest. A power of arrest was attached to both injunctions under section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. There was a significant risk of harm, and arrest was more effective and efficient than committal proceedings, especially against persons whose identity was unknown. No undertaking in damages was required from the local authority.