London Borough of Havering v Stokes & Ors [2024] EWHC 2496 (KB) (03 October 2024)

London Borough of Havering v Stokes & Ors [2024] EWHC 2496 (KB) (03 October 2024)

The court held that the Claimant had established a real and imminent risk of future unauthorised encampments and associated fly-tipping by the named defendants and persons unknown, that existing remedies were inadequate, and that the terms of the proposed injunctions (with exceptions and procedural safeguards) were proportionate and justified. The court assessed the evidence in respect of each named defendant and found the requirements for a precautionary injunction satisfied. The injunction against persons unknown was limited to specified sites to ensure proportionality.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2496 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Havering; Defendants: William Stokes and 51 other named defendants; Defendants: Persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments within the London Borough of Havering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Claim for Precautionary Injunction Under Planning and Local Government Legislation / Final Hearing and Judgment on Application for Final Injunction
Outcome
Final injunction granted in amended terms
Legal Topics
Precautionary Injunctions, Quia Timet Relief, Planning Control Breaches, Traveller and Gypsy Encampments, Fly Tipping, Persons Unknown Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 222 Local Government Act 1972
Planning Law Local Government Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Precautionary Injunctions Quia Timet Relief Planning Control Breaches Traveller and Gypsy Encampments +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Havering

Claimant

William Stokes and 51 other named defendants

Defendants

Persons unknown forming unauthorised encampments within the London Borough of Havering

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Claim for Precautionary Injunction Under Planning and Local Government Legislation / Final Hearing and Judgment on Application for Final Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a final precautionary injunction against named defendants and persons unknown to restrain unauthorised encampments and associated fly-tipping within the London Borough of Havering
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a quia timet injunction are satisfied in respect of each named defendant
  3. 3 Whether the injunction terms are proportionate and compliant with Convention rights, particularly Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Claimant had established a real and imminent risk of future unauthorised encampments and associated fly-tipping by the named defendants and persons unknown, that existing remedies were inadequate, and that the terms of the proposed injunctions (with exceptions and procedural safeguards) were proportionate and justified. The court assessed the evidence in respect of each named defendant and found the requirements for a precautionary injunction satisfied. The injunction against persons unknown was limited to specified sites to ensure proportionality.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted in amended terms

Orders

  • A borough-wide injunction is granted against the named defendants restraining unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping, subject to exceptions for lawful or permitted encampments and with a mechanism for seeking permission.
  • A site-specific injunction is granted against persons unknown in respect of 306 identified sites, with notice provisions and procedural safeguards.