London Borough of Havering v William Stokes & Ors

London Borough of Havering v William Stokes & Ors

The court found that the Claimant had established a sufficiently grave and imminent risk of unauthorised encampments and associated fly-tipping by named defendants and persons unknown, that other remedies were inadequate, and that the proposed injunctions were proportionate and justified. Borough-wide injunctions were granted against certain named defendants, site-specific injunctions against persons unknown, and a power of arrest was attached only in cases involving violence and serious harm.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Havering; Defendant: William Stokes; Defendants: Other Named Defendants; Defendants: Persons Unknown Forming Unauthorised Encampments within the London Borough of Havering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Precautionary Injunction Claim / Final Judgment After Hearing and Further Submissions
Outcome
Precautionary injunctions granted against named defendants and persons unknown; power of arrest attached only to two named defendants.
Legal Topics
Precautionary Injunctions, Unauthorised Encampments, Fly Tipping, Trespass, Nuisance, Convention Rights, Power of Arrest
Planning Law Public Law Civil Procedure Precautionary Injunctions Unauthorised Encampments Fly Tipping Trespass Nuisance +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Havering

Claimant

William Stokes

Defendant

Other Named Defendants

Defendants

Persons Unknown Forming Unauthorised Encampments within the London Borough of Havering

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Precautionary Injunction Claim / Final Judgment After Hearing and Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a precautionary injunction should be granted against named defendants and persons unknown for unauthorised encampments and associated fly-tipping
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a borough-wide injunction and site-specific injunction are met
  3. 3 Whether a power of arrest should be attached to the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant had established a sufficiently grave and imminent risk of unauthorised encampments and associated fly-tipping by named defendants and persons unknown, that other remedies were inadequate, and that the proposed injunctions were proportionate and justified. Borough-wide injunctions were granted against certain named defendants, site-specific injunctions against persons unknown, and a power of arrest was attached only in cases involving violence and serious harm.

Court Disposition

Precautionary injunctions granted against named defendants and persons unknown; power of arrest attached only to two named defendants.

Orders

  • Borough-wide injunctions against certain named defendants prohibiting unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping
  • Site-specific injunctions against persons unknown covering 306 identified sites