QB-2019-002737 - [2025] EWHC 2603 (KB)

B)​ The Letter from LGT

In the early hours of 6 October 2025, the Public Interest Law Centre sent to me direct a letter on behalf of LGT, a charitable NGO who were ordered to be served with proceedings relating to injunctions against persons unknown by the Supreme Court in the case of WolverhamptonCity Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] 2 WLR 45 (“Wolverhampton”). I directed that the KB Listing Office should return the letter to the solicitors referring them to the provisions of CPR 39.9 that provides that all communications with the Court should be copied to the parties (see R (Jasseh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 47 (Admin), [23]). The letter was subsequently resubmitted and copied to the Claimant.

In the letter LGT explained that they had requested the Claimant to agree that these proceedings should be joined with the case of Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond of Thames (KB-2024-003315). The Claimant declined to agree to that proposal, pointing out that these proceedings were at a very different stage from Richmond’s which had been issued after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Wolverhampton. There was then a subsequent request for the Claimant to confirm that it would not seek its costs against LGT in the event that they applied to be heard at the hearing before me. The Claimant indicated that it would be neutral as to whether permission to intervene should be granted and it would only seek costs if the application required an adjournment.

In the event the LGT did not make an application to be heard at the hearing because they were unable to obtain the services of counsel sufficiently experienced in this area.

In the letter from Public Interest Law Centre, the LGT requested that the order contained a liberty to apply provision to enable them to make an application to vary any order made at a future date. I have taken into account LGT’s letter and note that the draft Order being sought has provision by which the Defendants or anyone notified of the Order may each of them apply to the court on 72 hours written notice to both the court and the Claimant (without prejudice to the right of that person to apply to shorten the time for written notice) to vary or discharge this Order or so much as if it affects that person. I will direct that the Order which I make should be notified to LGT accordingly.