Uttlesford DC v Anthony Mongan & Ors

When deciding whether to continue a planning injunction against persons unknown, the court must assess the cause of action, evidence, justification, adequacy of damages and procedural safeguards. An assertion of home rights under the European Convention on Human Rights requires proof of real residential occupation. Relevant considerations include ordinary daily life, community ties, other accommodation and the time and manner in which occupation began. A rapid move onto undeveloped land does not by itself establish a home. Where residential occupation is not shown, Article 8 does not require a proportionality assessment before a prohibition on residence is continued.

Uttlesford District Council obtained an ex parte injunction under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 prohibiting development and residence on land allegedly being converted into an unauthorised traveller site. Anthony Mongan and other family members said they had moved into caravans before the injunction and challenged the prohibition on residence, relying on Article 8. Lorna Derrett, who owned a separate neighbouring parcel, was also named as a defendant. At the return hearing, the court considered whether to continue relief against persons unknown and the named occupants, whether residential occupation had begun before the initial order, and whether Article 8 required a different result.

1. Persons unknown. The court applied the criteria for injunctions against persons unknown discussed in Valero Energy v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 and considered the guidance in The Jockey Club [2024] EWHC 1786. It found a quia timet cause of action, sufficient evidence, no realistic defence for newcomers, compelling justification and no adequate remedy in damages. It also considered the requirements that the persons unknown be properly identified and that the injunction have suitably defined prohibitions, duration, service and review arrangements. Having taken account of Wolverhampton [2023] UKSC 47 and Ineos Upstream v Persons Unknown [2019] EWCA Civ 515, the court continued the injunction against persons unknown.
2. Residential occupation. No prior authority before the court had defined the residential occupation necessary to establish Article 8 home rights in this context. The court identified relevant considerations: all the circumstances; whether occupation was real; the ordinary activities of daily life and community ties; whether the occupants had other homes or rights to occupy elsewhere; and the time over which family life at the site had developed. The factors were applied to the evidence, including the caravans’ condition, the absence of services, the timing of the works and the lack of reliable evidence of families living there. The court found on the balance of probabilities that no one was residing on the land when the initial injunction was granted.
3. Human rights and continuation. The court followed the approach in South Bucks v Porter [2003] UKHL 26: Article 8 proportionality is relevant where defendants are residing on the land. Because prior residential occupation was not established, Article 8 did not affect the decision to continue the prohibition on residence. The court also concluded that Articles 10 and 11 were not engaged for persons unknown on the evidence before it. The injunction was continued against Mongan and the family members identified in correspondence, subject to their joinder under the claimant’s undertaking. Derrett was removed as a defendant.

1. High Court (King's Bench Division): On 7 May 2026, Mr Justice Mould granted an ex parte injunction. On 13 May 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Padley continued it and set a return hearing.
2. High Court (King's Bench Division): At the return hearing on 18 June 2026, Ritchie J continued the injunction and removed Lorna Derrett as a defendant.