England and Wales Case Law

Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors

There have been no material changes in fact or law to justify discharge of the injunction or power of arrest. The Second Claimant is permitted to discontinue its claim. The injunction and power of arrest are continued (with minor amendments) for the remaining Claimants until 1 March 2027, with clarification of service and signage requirements and removal of the Second Claimant's area.

Source excerpt

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Anti-social behaviour
• Street racing
• Power of arrest
• Alternative service
• Review hearings

Read case analysis

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown

The High Court renewed Rochdale Council’s Traveller Injunction for 12 months against Persons Unknown, finding it remained effective, proportionate, and justified.

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Unauthorised encampments
• Traveller injunctions
• Planning control
• Section 187b town and country planning act 1990
• Section 222 local government act 1972

Read case analysis

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2026] EWHC 1214 (KB) (21 May 2026)

The High Court renewed Rochdale Council’s traveller injunction for 12 months, finding it had reduced unauthorised encampments and related harms and remained justified.

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Traveller injunctions
• Breach of planning control
• Section 187b town and country planning act 1990
• Section 222 local government act 1972
• Service requirements for persons unknown

Read case analysis

Dacorum Borough Council v Persons Unknown

The High Court continued a planning injunction against persons unknown and added named intended defendants, refusing discharge or variation after finding unlawful development and no disclosure breach.

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Section 187b town and country planning act 1990
• Article 8 echr
• Planning enforcement
• Interim relief
• Duty of full and frank disclosure

Read case analysis

Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

Birmingham City Council v Persons Unknown & Ors [2026] EWHC 442 (KB) (27 February 2026)

The High Court continued a Birmingham anti-street-cruising injunction and power of arrest after finding no material change in fact or law, with minor clarifications to service and duration.

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Anti-social behaviour
• Street cruising
• Power of arrest
• Alternative service
• Review hearings

Read case analysis

Cardiff University v Persons Unknown

The University has demonstrated a compelling need for protection of its property rights against repeated unlawful protest, trespass, and nuisance by persons unknown. The injunction is justified and proportionate under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, given the availability of lawful protest mechanisms, the presumption in favour of consent under the Code, and the liberty to apply to vary or discharge. The terms, geographic scope (excluding the Music Building), and temporal limit (until 31 July 2026) are appropriate, and notification requirements have been satisfied.

Source excerpt

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Trespass
• Private nuisance
• Protest law
• Echr articles 10 and 11
• University property rights

Read case analysis

Surrey County Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

Surrey County Council v Persons Unknown & Ors [2026] EWHC 188 (KB) (02 February 2026)

The High Court granted Surrey County Council an injunction restricting unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping on Chobham Common against two classes of persons unknown.

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Traveller injunctions
• Trespass
• Fly-tipping
• Local authority powers
• Procedural protections for persons unknown

Read case analysis

Surrey County Council v Persons Unknown & Ors

The High Court granted Surrey County Council a fresh injunction to restrain unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping on Chobham Common, with notice and liberty-to-apply safeguards.

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Traveller injunctions
• Trespass
• Fly-tipping
• Site protection
• Procedural protections

Read case analysis

The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown

The University is entitled to a final injunction against persons unknown for a year over three specified sites, as there is a real and imminent risk of trespass and nuisance, no realistic private law or human rights defence, and the injunction is necessary, proportionate, clear, and leaves ample opportunity for protest elsewhere. The procedural and substantive requirements for injunctions against persons unknown are satisfied.

Source excerpt

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Freedom of expression
• Freedom of assembly
• Trespass
• Private nuisance
• Echr articles 10, 11, 14

Read case analysis

The Office Group Properties Limited & Anor v Persons Unknown

The application for an injunction fails because the evidence does not demonstrate a strong probability of imminent recurrence of trespassory protest at Tintagel House. The evidential threshold for compelling justification is not met; possibility of future protest is insufficient. Procedural requirements for notification were satisfied, but substantive requirements for injunctive relief are lacking.

Source excerpt

• Injunctions against persons unknown
• Trespass
• Protest rights
• Balancing convention rights
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis