Newcomer injunctions are injunctions against persons who are unknown, unidentified and are yet to commit an act which the injunction prohibits at the time an injunction order is made. 

Whether the court has the power to grant newcomer injunctions was considered in Wolverhampton City Council and others (Respondents) v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (Appellants) [2023] UKSC 47. In this case, a number of local authorities between 2015 and 2020 were granted injunctions preventing newcomers from forming unauthorised encampments on local authority land. Some local authorities sought to extend or vary injunctions which were coming to an end, including seeking final injunctions. 

The High Court held that although interim injunctions could be granted against persons unknown, any final injunction could only be granted to parties who had been identified by the time of the final hearing and therefore had the opportunity to contest the final order. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court decision was wrong and that the courts did in fact have the power to grant final injunctions to newcomers who had not been identified at the time of the final hearing. The Gypsies and Travellers groups appealed to the Supreme Court. 

On 29 November 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, confirming that the court has power to grant newcomer injunctions, but such power should be limited and used only where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or to enforce public law. 

The Supreme Court recognised that newcomer injunctions were an entirely new type of injunction and should be made subject to procedural safeguards which protect newcomers’ rights. There must be a strong probability that a tort of breach of public law is to be committed and that this will cause real harm. In addition, the applicant must be able to illustrate that they have exhausted all reasonable alternatives suggesting that newcomer injunctions should only be used as a last resort, which is similar to the criteria for other injunctions. As local authorities often make applications for injunctions the court concluded that they ought to be well equipped to prepare such evidence.

This case creates a significant distinction between the conclusion reached by Nicklin J in Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 303, whereby an interim injunction could be granted against persons unknown and if the applicant could identify anyone in the category of “persons unknown” at the time of the hearing, the final injunction would only bind each person who could be identified. If nobody could be identified, then the injunction bound no one. This decision is similar to the one reached by the High Court in this case, referred to above. 

This decision will no doubt be welcomed by local authorities and landowners who are concerned about unlawful activity on their land. It is however important to remember that although the decision went in favour of landowners, newcomer injunctions will not always be appropriate where other measures are more suitable. In addition, it is likely that this decision will assist the courts going forward when dealing with matters such as industrial action and protests, where individuals are difficult to identify at the outset. Whilst protests were not the focus of this case, the Supreme Court recognised that direct protest action might justify the grant of a newcomer injunction, but it remains to be seen whether specific safeguards will be developed in relation to protest cases.