London Borough of Barking and Dagenham & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) (12 May 2021)

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) (12 May 2021)

Final injunctions granted against 'Persons Unknown' cannot bind newcomers who are not parties at the date of the final order and have not been served with the claim form. Service of the claim form is essential for jurisdiction. Borough-wide Traveller Injunctions are inherently problematic and likely disproportionate unless local authorities demonstrate engagement, welfare assessment, and provision of transit sites. The Article 8 rights of Gypsies and Travellers are engaged and must be balanced against the common law of trespass and public interest.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1201
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; Claimant: Other Local Authorities; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendant: Other named Defendants; Intervener: London Gypsies and Travellers; Intervener: Friends, Families and Travellers; Intervener: National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups; Advocate to the Court: Sarah Wilkinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Issues of Principle Regarding 'traveller Injunctions'
Outcome
Principles clarified; injunctions against 'Persons Unknown' cannot bind newcomers; procedural defects in service invalidate many existing orders.
Legal Topics
Injunctions Against Persons Unknown, Article 8 ECHR Rights, Public Sector Equality Duty, Service of Claim Form, Proportionality of Injunctions, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, Alternative Service Under CPR, Duration and Scope of Injunctions
Civil Procedure Human Rights Local Government Law Injunctions Against Persons Unknown Article 8 ECHR Rights Public Sector Equality Duty Service of Claim Form Proportionality of Injunctions +3 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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Claimant

Other Local Authorities

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Other named Defendants

Defendant

London Gypsies and Travellers

Intervener

Friends, Families and Travellers

Intervener

National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups

Intervener

Sarah Wilkinson

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Issues of Principle Regarding 'traveller Injunctions'

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether final injunctions against 'Persons Unknown' can bind newcomers
  2. 2 Proper service of claim form on 'Persons Unknown'
  3. 3 Proportionality and necessity of borough-wide Traveller Injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

Final injunctions granted against 'Persons Unknown' cannot bind newcomers who are not parties at the date of the final order and have not been served with the claim form. Service of the claim form is essential for jurisdiction. Borough-wide Traveller Injunctions are inherently problematic and likely disproportionate unless local authorities demonstrate engagement, welfare assessment, and provision of transit sites. The Article 8 rights of Gypsies and Travellers are engaged and must be balanced against the common law of trespass and public interest.

Court Disposition

Principles clarified; injunctions against 'Persons Unknown' cannot bind newcomers; procedural defects in service invalidate many existing orders.

Orders

  • Local authorities must review and restore claims if legal principles change or grounds for discharge arise.
  • Existing Traveller Injunctions must be reconsidered for compliance with service, proportionality, and engagement requirements.