“The Claimant’s concern is not primarily with traveller encampments without more. Instead its particular concern is with those of such encampments as are associated with commercial fly-tipping and/or forcible entry to property and in particular those of such encampments as are associated with aggression on the part of the occupiers to others. It is important to keep in mind at all times that, as the Claimant expressly recognises, to the extent that those who engage in such behaviour are members of the Traveller or Gypsy communities they form a small and non-representative minority in such groups.”
“a. the Council apprehends that if the Injunction expires, unauthorised encampments will again form in the Borough with greater frequency, size and duration, in line with the experience of the Borough prior to the grant of injunctive relief, and significant harm will be suffered by the inhabitants of the Borough as a result; and b. the alternative methods and powers available to the Council to control and manage unauthorised encampments are not as effective or efficient enough to prevent the apprehended harms (or reduce them to a manageable level).”
“The nomadic way of life of the Gypsy and Traveller community means that there is a revolving cast of people passing through the Borough and who are forming encampments (as demonstrated by the three encampments in 2025 all having been formed by different people, none of whom were recognised). In those circumstances, it is impossible for the Council to know who will in fact visit the Borough and form an unauthorised encampment. 86. When unauthorised encampments form, the Council is not always able to identify those who are present at an encampment. It is common for members of encampments to decline to give a name when asked by Council officers, or they give only a first name, surname or nickname. In this Claim, the vast majority (if not all) of the 105 Named Defendants were identified with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police, who checked the registration numbers of the vehicles present at the various encampments against the police database. Even then, sometimes no trace of the person or vehicle could be found, or various other issues arose, such as cloned number plates and incomplete or incorrect data, again thwarting attempts at identification. Indeed, some Named Defendants were discontinued against because the identification data obtained in this way was shown to be unreliable.”
“give[s]all parties an opportunity to make full and complete disclosure to the court, supported by appropriate evidence, as to how effective the order has been; whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made.”
“51. In my judgment the correct approach is dictated by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Wolverhampton and in particular in [225]. This is not a “tick box” exercise, but the matters on which evidence should be adduced and argument focused are (i) how effective the order has been; (ii) whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; (iii) whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and (iv) whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made. The parties should give full disclosure, supported by appropriate evidence, directed towards those questions. 52. There will be cases, such as Basingstoke, where an issue has emerged, whether at the original hearing or in preparation for the renewed hearing, which needs to be addressed expressly at that renewal hearing. Whether that necessitates an expanded renewal hearing or what [the Deputy Judge in Basingstoke & Deane BC v Persons Unknown[2025] EWHC 738 (KB) ] calls a de novo hearing will depend on the facts. The position may also be different where the application for further injunctive relief is not made during the currency of the previous order, but after it has expired. But the guiding light will always be the Supreme Court’s judgment in Wolverhampton.”