Wolverhampton Traveller injunctions – where are we now?

It has been nearly two years since the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers & Ors [2023] UKSC 47 (29 November 2023). What has happened since that judgment, how has the law developed and what must a local authority keep in mind when seeking to rely on that jurisdiction and seek injunctive relief?

What happened in Wolverhampton?

Wolverhampton (known as Barking and Dagenham in the High Court and Court of Appeal) concerned so-called Traveller injunctions. The injunctions that had been brought within the proceedings had been sought and obtained by local authorities pursuant to s222 of the Local Government Act 1972, s187B of the Town and Country Planning At 1990 or, in some cases, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. In broad terms, each of the injunctions prohibited the formation of unauthorised encampments. Most of the injunctions, in so far as they concerned Persons Unknown, applied to multiple sites across the relevant administrative areas (with a minority being borough-wide against Persons Unknown).

The Supreme Court had to consider whether final injunctive relief could be granted against a ‘newcomer’ (those persons who are unknown and unidentified at the time the order is made). The Court found that such orders can be granted, and set down the relevant safeguards. Injunctions against Persons Unknown prohibiting the formation of unauthorised encampments survived the judgment.

Importantly, where relief is granted against Persons Unknown, the relief must be time limited to 12 months, and its continuation beyond that date is subject to review by the court.

How is relief obtained post-Wolverhampton?

Post-Wolverhampton, claims now fall into one of two categories: (i) those which are to be subject to a full Wolverhampton assessment, and (ii) those which are subject to a review standard.

Subject to one exception of which this author is aware, all those claims that fall into category (i) are new claims (or is at least a claim that is coming back to court for the first time since Wolverhampton, and which has not yet been tested against the Wolverhampton requirements). Therefore, any local authority seeking to obtain fresh relief must be prepared to meet a full Wolverhampton assessment, and the stringency that it carries.

Where relief has already been obtained, and is being reviewed, a lower threshold is typically applied. There is some variation in the language used in the various injunctions that have been granted; ‘review’, ‘renewal’ and ‘continuation’ have all been used to describe the annual event. In this author’s experience, the variation in the language has made no difference to the approach taken and test applied by the court.

Following a sequence of three cases in the spring of 2025 (which concerned the injunctions held by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Test Valley Borough Council and Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council), the test to be applied on review was settled by Garnham J in Rochdale MBC v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1314 (KB), which test has since been applied widely (including in the annual review of protest injunctions). The test requires the court to first ask whether there has been a material change of circumstances, if the answer to that question is ‘no’, the court proceeds to apply a four-stage test: (i) how effective the order has been; (ii) whether any reasons or grounds for its discharge have emerged; (iii) whether there is any proper justification for its continuance; and (iv) whether and on what basis a further order ought to be made. The case law (both in the Traveller and protestor context) makes clear that there is no presumption of continuation.

If, however, the court considers that there has been a material change of circumstances, a full Wolverhampton assessment must be conducted.

The power of arrest

Where injunctive relief is obtained under s222 of the Local Government Act 1972, local authorities can seek a to attach a power of arrest to the injunction pursuant to s27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. Once the power of arrest is granted, this author’s experience is that it too is subject to the same review standard as the order it supports.

The court continues to guard jealously the initial grant of a power of arrest. It remains the case that evidence of the use or threatened use of violence is the limb of the statutory test that yields the best results in securing a power of arrest. However, as was clear from the final hearing of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council injunction in December 2024, the ‘significant risk of harm’ limb can be given a wide meaning, and includes harms suffered by the tipping of waste (both household and human).

The court’s approach to the grant of powers of arrest was exhibited when Exeter City Council sought injunctive relief in the summer of 2025 to protect a site to be used during the course of the Women’s Rugby World Cup. The local authority relied both on incidents of violence, and the harm associated with the depositing of waste, with the evidence presented being of the nature and quality that one would ordinarily expect to obtain in such applications. When giving an extempore judgment, the Judge made clear that the power of arrest was granted by the finest of margins (and against the court’s initial leaning).

Local authorities seeking a power of arrest should give extra attention to the evidence in support of that application; the application will be heavily scrutinised, and a local authority should not assume that it will be granted when the need for injunctive relief is established.

Natalie Pratt of Radcliffe Chambers acts regularly for local authorities in Traveller-injunction matters. She appeared in Wolverhampton, as well as all of the other cases referenced in this article, and specialises in Persons Unknown injunctions generally.