Uniper UK Limited v Joshua Barter & Ors

On an application to renew an interim injunction against persons unknown, the court should consider whether anything material has changed, while ensuring procedural and legal rigour. The absence of new incursions may support renewal where the evidence indicates that the injunction is deterring entry and the underlying risk remains. The approach in HS2 v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) was applied. The time-limit observations in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 were context-specific and did not impose a universal maximum period. A two-year renewal was proportionate for a private site undergoing dangerous, multi-year decommissioning and demolition.

The claimant sought renewal of an interim injunction granted by Mellor J on 30 July 2025. The injunction restrained trespass and nuisance by named defendants and persons unknown, including urban explorers and travellers entering a former coal-fired power-station site. The defendants did not attend or appear. Although no incursions had been recorded since the original order, the evidence showed continuing interest in the site and continuing risks of unauthorised entry, theft and damage. The central issues were whether anything material had changed and whether a further 24-month period was proportionate during the site’s decommissioning and demolition.

Application granted. The interim injunction was renewed for 24 months.

1. Renewal criteria. The court accepted that substituted service of the original order and the present application had complied with the requirements imposed. It applied the approach stated in HS2 v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB) at §32: the court should assess whether anything material has changed, having regard to the continuing risk and the claimant’s justified concern, subject to procedural and legal rigour.
2. Continuing risk. The absence of recorded trespass did not establish that the risk had diminished. The evidence of continuing interest by urban explorers, observations near the site, prior theft of copper and recent comparable incidents justified an inference that the injunction was deterring entry. The risks identified when the original order was made therefore remained sufficient to justify continuation.
3. Duration. The observations of the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 at §225 concerned borough-wide injunctions sought by local authorities against Gypsy and Traveller communities. Following 1 Leadenhall GP Limited v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 854 (KB) at §10, the court held that those observations did not establish a maximum period for interim injunctions against persons unknown in materially different contexts.
4. Proportionate period. This was a private landowner’s application concerning a dangerous site undergoing decommissioning and demolition expected to continue for several years. A two-year extension was therefore appropriate. A further application might be required later, but that issue did not need to be determined at this stage. The order was made in the terms sought.

This was a first-instance application to renew an interim injunction. The judgment records that Mellor J granted the original order on 30 July 2025 for 12 months and permitted an application to extend or vary it. Mrs Justice Bacon granted the present application and renewed the order for two years.