London Borough of Havering v William Stokes & Ors

Renewal of an injunction against persons unknown requires a review directed to the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, justification for continuation, and the basis for any further order. It is not a mechanical or “tick box” exercise. A reduction in prohibited conduct may demonstrate that an injunction is effective rather than that the underlying threat has disappeared. The Vastint precautionary test has been subsumed into the framework established in Wolverhampton, although it remains a useful cross-check. Where service of an injunction has been defective, relief from sanctions may be granted with a proportionate suspension of the order for the affected site.

The claimant local authority sought, under paragraph 12 of an existing injunction, a further 12-month injunction against persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments within specified sensitive sites in the borough.

The earlier injunction had been granted by Eyre J in London Borough of Havering v Stokes & Ors [2024] EWHC 2496 (KB). The defendants were not represented. The court considered the evidence of the injunction’s effectiveness, continuing encampments, service defects, accommodation provision and the claimant’s negotiated tolerance policy.

The central issues were whether there had been a material change requiring a full review, whether continuation remained justified, and what relief should be granted for late service of one sensitive site.

1. The injunction was extended for 12 months against persons unknown. The order was subject to service on the London Gypsies and Travellers Group, a 28-day suspension in relation to Sensitive Site 300, and an undertaking that the claimant would elevate its negotiated tolerance procedure and temporary transit agreement to a formal council policy.

2. The review was governed by the approach identified in Wolverhampton. The court had to consider: how effective the order had been; whether grounds for discharge had emerged; whether there was proper justification for continuation; and whether, and on what basis, a further order should be made. The exercise required full disclosure and appropriate evidence and was not a tick-box exercise.

3. There had been no material change of circumstances since the earlier injunction. The fall in unauthorised encampments was evidence that the injunction had achieved its intended effect, not evidence that the threat had dissipated. Continuing encampments and evidence that the borough remained targeted justified renewal.

4. The precautionary test in Vastint had been subsumed into the Wolverhampton framework, but remained a useful double check. The court also distinguished longer-term accommodation need from the transient encampments addressed by the injunction.

5. Applying the three-stage test in Denton, relief from sanctions was granted for the late service of Sensitive Site 300. Suspending the injunction for 28 days in relation to that site was the appropriate and proportionate response to the service defect.