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

[E] Discussion and decision

In my judgment there has been no material change of circumstances such as to justify a full Wolverhampton review. The fact that there has been a reduction in the number of unauthorised encampments is not a material change of circumstances but rather evidence that the Injunction has had the intended effect. The courts have repeatedly held in this context that evidence that an injunction has been effective is not evidence that the threat has dissipated; rather, it is evidence that the injunction has had its intended effect: see Ritchie J’s judgment in Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 134 at [64]; the judgment of Dexter Dias J in Shell Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 3130 (KB)at [111]-[112]; the judgment of Hill J in Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB) and the judgment of Garnham J inin Rochdale at [57].

On the evidence before me there has been no material change since the Eyre J judgment. Accordingly, the approach that I have taken is that set out in Rochdale, focusing as Garnham J emphasised, on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Wolverhampton and [225] in particular.

How effective has the Injunction been?

The evidence before me indicates that the Injunction has been effective (see the citations from Ms Mehat’s statement above at [21] and [23]-[24].

Are there grounds for discharge?

Unauthorised encampments have continued to form. Indeed the last unauthorised encampment was relatively recent in early September 2025. Ms Mehat’s evidence also indicates that unauthorised encampments continue in areas near to the Borough.

Is there a proper justification for continuation?

The fact that the Borough remains a target for unauthorised encampments indicates that there is a proper justification for the Injunction to be renewed against Persons Unknown. It is telling that neighbouring areas that do not have similar injunctive relief have experienced unauthorised encampments with greater frequency. Ms Mehat explains in her statement that Thurrock has had 15 unauthorised encampments between January 2023 and 11 August 2025. Newham recorded six unauthorised encampments in the borough throughout 2024.

Whether and on what basis should a further order be made?

As part of the Claimant’s duty of full and frank disclosure Ms Pratt drew two particular matters to my attention.

The first is the fact that there was a delay in serving the Injunction. Ms Eastaff explains in her fourth witness statement at [13] that the service of the Injunction occurred between January 2025 and March 2025. She explains that “[a]t the relevant time, when the final Order was granted in October 2024, we experienced a large number of staff off sick simultaneously. This reduction in available resources directly impacted our capacity to carry out our duties in a timely manner and we were only able to deal with priority emergency matters. Unfortunately, we did not have the budget to recruit agency staff or arrange resources from elsewhere in the Council to undertake service of all 306 sites at the time. Consequently, as soon as capacity in the team increased in January 2025, service was undertaken swiftly on all sites.”

That delay might be said to undermine the need for injunctive relief. However, it is notable that there have been three unauthorised encampments since the Injunction was served, the third as recently as last month. In my judgment the delay in serving the Injunction does not materially detract from the need for injunctive relief.

The second is that the Claimant does not operate a transit site and that there is a shortfall in the provision of pitches for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. Ms Warren in her statement explains that the five-year supply balance is a shortfall of 60 pitches. However, as Ms Warren explains at [23] of her statement:

“The assessed need addressed the longer term need of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople in the Borough and deals with a[n] issue different to that of the injunction. The assessed need reflects the needs of those who wish to set up a more permanent or semipermanent residence within the Borough, whereas the injunction is capturing those who are transiting through the area, with a propensity to leave waste, often linked to their commercial enterprises, dumped behind. Typically, those who are captured by the Council’s injunction are not those who want to stay in the Borough on a permanent or semi-permanent basis; it is not a case that they are forming unauthorised encampments because there is a shortfall in pitch provision”.

I am satisfied that on the basis of the foregoing I should extend the Injunction for a further period of twelve months as against Persons Unknown. If no application is made for it to be renewed, then it will expire by effluxion of time.

I have considered the draft Order that has been prepared and will grant it in those terms, subject to the modifications:

That it be served on LGT (see above at [16])

That the power in relation to Sensitive Site 300 should be suspended for 28 days (see above at [19]); and

That the Claimant undertakes to elevate its Negotiated Tolerance Procedure and Temporary Transit Agreement to the status of a formal Council policy (see above at [25].

In my judgment there is no reason to depart from the usual position that no undertaking as to damages is required. No such undertaking was required by Eyre J, and the position has not materially changed since his judgment.

I invite the Claimant to prepare a revised draft of their proposed order reflecting this judgment.