THE EMERGENCE OF “NEWCOMER INJUNCTIONS”

Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47, [2024] 2 All E.R. 431 ("Wolverhampton"), the Supreme Court upheld an injunction awarded to the respondent local government authorities which prevented any individuals establishing unauthorised encampments on local authority land.The appellants, representing the Gypsies and Travellers community (as the litigating party describe themselves), opposed these injunctions primarily by invoking the conventional common law principle that injunctions should be limited to identified defendants who have been served with proceedings, rather than being imposed universally.The appellants objected that the impugned injunction effectively functioned as local law, regulating land use and criminalising conduct through the threat of contempt of court.The Supreme Court clarified some important legal principles regarding such injunctions.The court balanced the right of Gypsies and Travellers to respect for private and family life, as protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, against the right of local authorities to manage property in the name of public interest.The decision is significant as it creates a "wholly new type of injunction" known as the "newcomer injunction" (at [144]).Importantly, the ruling also established safeguards for these injunctions to protect the rights of affected parties.Since 2015, local authorities have increasingly sought injunctions against "persons unknown" to prevent unauthorised encampments on accessible public lands.The legality of these injunctions was first scrutinised by the high court in London Borough of Bromley v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 1675 (QB), where the application was dismissed due to inadequate consideration of equality impact assessments.The Court of Appeal ([2020] EWCA Civ 12), led by Coulson L.J., upheld this decision, emphasising that such injunctions could infringe upon the Convention rights of the Gypsy and Traveller communities.The issue resurfaced in the high court in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB), where Nicklin J. emphasised the distinction between interim and final injunctions and refused to impose final orders that would restrict the actions of unidentified persons without assessment of individual circumstances.The claimants appealed and, in a surprising turn, the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 13) unanimously overturned Nicklin J.'s decision and upheld the injunctions.Sir Geoffrey Vos denied a fundamental difference between interim and final injunctions issued universally against unidentified persons, as courts must continuously review these injunctions to ensure the order is properly enforced, even if they are final in character.Furthermore, in 35