Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council & Anor v Henry Loveridge & Ors

A newcomer injunction against persons unknown is an exceptional form of without-notice equitable relief. It may be granted only where the evidence establishes a compelling need to protect civil rights, enforce planning control or achieve another statutory objective, and ordinary measures are inadequate.

The court must also ensure procedural protection, full and frank disclosure, precise territorial and temporal limits, and that the order is just and convenient. A renewal application for a short-term order should ordinarily be heard de novo, with real scrutiny of whether the compelling circumstances remain. The continuing effectiveness of an injunction does not itself prove that renewal is unnecessary, where the evidence shows that the underlying risk would return without it.

The claimants, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and Hampshire County Council, sought a further 12-month injunction against newcomer persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments or depositing waste in a defined area of the borough.

The original five-year injunction had been granted in 2019. A further one-year order was granted by Freedman J and was due to expire on 4 April 2025. The defendants did not appear and were not represented.

The central issues were whether the application should be treated as a review or heard afresh; whether the statutory and equitable conditions for a newcomer injunction were met; whether lawful stopping places and other reasonable alternatives had been sufficiently considered; and whether the proposed order was proportionate and procedurally fair.

1. Renewal granted. The injunction was continued for 12 months in the terms of the draft order. The application was properly heard de novo, rather than as a limited review, because the existing one-year order would expire by effluxion of time and Freedman J had required careful scrutiny of any renewal.
2. The governing principles were those identified by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v The London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47. A newcomer injunction is a novel form of without-notice relief. It is justified only where there is a compelling, evidence-based need; other reasonable measures are inadequate; affected persons receive meaningful procedural protection; the order is territorially and temporally constrained; and it is just and convenient on the particular facts.
3. The claimants had demonstrated a strong probability that unauthorised encampments and breaches of planning control would recur without restraint, and that the resulting health, amenity, nuisance and financial harms might not be adequately compensated by damages. The injunction had been effective, but the evidence of continuing pressure in neighbouring urban areas supported the inference that the risk would return if protection ceased.
4. The court considered the claimants’ negotiated stopping policy, case-by-case toleration, housing provision and enforcement powers. The borough was not meeting all identified accommodation needs and had no transit site, but the evidence showed that reasonable alternatives had been considered and that the proposed relief was confined to a small area where encampments caused disproportionate harm.
5. Procedural safeguards, including service measures, publication of evidence and a generous liberty to apply, were required. No cross-undertaking in damages was necessary. The court also applied the multifactorial approach in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2, as approved in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2022] EWCA Civ 13.
6. The relief remained exceptional. Any future renewal application should again be considered de novo, with evidence addressing the size of the protected area, accommodation needs, the case for a transit site, the need for a power of arrest and accessibility of evidence to affected groups.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that an earlier continuation order was made by Freedman J in [2024] EWHC 1828 (KB), but that decision formed part of the same proceedings and is not treated as an appellate judgment.