Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown

Renewal of an injunction against newcomer persons unknown requires a focused, evidence-based review rather than a mechanical checklist. The court should examine the order’s effectiveness, any grounds for discharge, the continuing justification for relief, and the basis on which a further order should be made.

Renewal is justified where unlawful activity remains a continuing threat, the injunction has reduced its frequency, duration and harm, and alternative measures are inadequate. The remedy must remain proportionate, with clear territorial and temporal limits, generous liberty to apply, and reasonable steps to notify affected persons. A borough-wide or substantially longer order will ordinarily require particular justification.

The Council sought a further 12-month renewal of an injunction against two categories of persons unknown who might form unauthorised encampments or deposit waste on 334 specified sites. The original injunction was granted in 2024 and renewed in 2025. It did not apply to named defendants, whose five-year injunction remained in force.

The Council relied on evidence that the injunction had substantially reduced the number and duration of encampments, fly-tipping, clean-up costs, public health risks and community tensions. It also relied on the continuing inability to identify future members of the travelling community and the inadequacy of alternative enforcement measures. The central issue was whether the injunction should be continued for a further year.

1. Renewal granted. The injunction against the 90th and 93rd Defendants was continued for 12 months. The court held that continuation was necessary and just and convenient.
2. The correct approach to renewal was the four-part framework identified in the 2025 Judgment:
   1. how effective the existing order had been;
   2. whether any grounds for discharge had emerged;
   3. whether there was proper justification for continuance; and
   4. whether, and on what basis, a further order should be made.
   This was not a tick-box exercise. Full disclosure and appropriate evidence were required.
3. There had been no material change of circumstances requiring an expanded or de novo hearing. The evidence showed that the injunction had greatly reduced the frequency and duration of encampments and significantly ameliorated associated harms. The reduction in threat demonstrated the order’s effectiveness rather than the disappearance of the underlying risk.
4. There remained a substantial threat of unauthorised encampments. Without the injunction, it was highly probable that encampments would increase in frequency and duration. The Council had considered alternative measures, provided or pursued lawful stopping places, and engaged with the Gypsy and Traveller communities. Those alternatives were not sufficiently effective to control the harm.
5. The order remained proportionate. It applied to only 334 specified sites, representing approximately 9.7% of the Borough, and would expire after 12 months unless renewed. The injunction was sufficiently clear and precise, included generous liberty to apply provisions, and required reasonable steps to notify affected persons.
6. The precautionary test in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2019] 4 WLR 2 was treated as a useful double check, although it had been subsumed into the governing framework.
7. The court accepted that no cross-undertaking was required. The order was not an interim holding measure and the Council was a public body acting in pursuance of public duty. The court also declined to convert the order into a true contra mundum order or require permission before contempt proceedings.