Surrey County Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

Injunctions against newcomer persons unknown are exceptional. They require compelling evidence of need, adequate procedural protection, stringent disclosure, and territorial and temporal limits proportionate to the unlawful activity. A local authority must consider lawful stopping places, engage with Gypsy and Traveller communities, exhaust reasonable alternatives, and assess other available powers. The absence of a transit site is not decisive where there is no legal duty to provide one, permanent sites exist, and effective negotiated stopping arrangements operate. A public authority seeking relief in the public interest will ordinarily not be required to give a cross-undertaking in damages.

Surrey County Council applied under Part 8 for an injunction covering Chobham Common against two groups of newcomer persons unknown: those forming unauthorised encampments and those depositing waste. The Council relied on trespass, highway powers, public law enforcement under the Local Government Act 1972, byelaws, and statutory protections for common land.

The application included land owned by Surrey Wildlife Trust. The central issues were whether the requirements identified in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers were satisfied and whether the proposed order was just and convenient.

1. The application was granted. The evidence established a compelling need to protect the Common, given its ecological and recreational importance, the history of unauthorised encampments, and the risks of damage and fly-tipping.

2. Applying Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, the court required procedural safeguards, full and frank disclosure, and territorial and temporal limits. The Council had publicised the proceedings through notices, its website, social media and communications to representative organisations. The order included generous liberty to apply provisions.

3. The Council had complied with its obligations concerning lawful stopping places. It maintained 17 permanent sites, had no legal duty to provide a transit site, and operated a negotiated stopping practice addressing welfare, dialogue, site suitability and orderly movement.

4. Other measures were inadequate. Powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the byelaws, police powers and physical barriers were insufficient for medium- or long-term protection of the Common.

5. Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 enabled the Council to enforce public law obligations for the protection of local inhabitants’ interests. That provided a sufficient basis to protect the landlocked parcel owned by Surrey Wildlife Trust.

6. No cross-undertaking in damages was required. The application principally enforced public law obligations, loss was highly unlikely, and there was no suggestion of misfeasance or Convention-rights infringement. A separate permission requirement before contempt proceedings was unnecessary because CPR 81 supplied sufficient safeguards.

The injunction expired shortly before midnight on 1 February 2027, subject to the renewal timetable specified in the order.