On 9 May 2025, the High Court conducted the annual review of the injunction against Persons Unknown in the Test Valley Borough Council case. In doing so, the Court grappled with the important question of which test should be applied at a review hearing, there having been a divergence of authority on the point. Natalie Pratt represented the Claimants, and obtained a 12-month extension to the injunction.
Test Valley was one of the cases caught within the Barking & Dagenham litigation, which culminated in the appeal to the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council & Ors v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 (in which Natalie appeared as junior counsel). Following Wolverhampton, in May 2024, Test Valley was granted injunctive relief against 100 Named Defendants for a period of five years, and relief against Persons Unknown for a year, pending a review and renewal of the Order against Persons Unknown. The injunction is a so-called Traveller injunction in that it prohibits the forming of unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping, and applies to 7.02% of the land in the borough of Test Valley.
A strong line of authority has developed in the context of protest injunctions as to the test that should be applied on the review of a Persons Unknown injunction (see High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1277 (KB); Transport for London v Persons Unknown & Ors [2025] EWHC 55 (KB) and Valero Energy Ltd v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 207 (KB)). That line of authority establishes that, on review, the court is not starting de novo; rather, the court should ask whether there has been a material change of circumstances, and if the answer to that question is ‘no’ and all procedural and legal rigour has been observed, the extension should be granted. If, on the other hand, material circumstances have changed, only then should the thresholds for grating the original relief be re-considered.
However, in March 2025, when conducting the annual review of the Persons Unknown injunction in the Basingstoke and Deane Traveller injunction case (see [2025] EWHC 738 (KB)), Kirsty Brimelow KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) elected to consider the matter de novo.
In Test Valley, HHJ Sarah Richardson (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the conflicting approaches, and found that the correct approach was to follow the line of HS2, TfL and Valero authority. The Judge considered that approach to be principled, and in keeping with the Wolverhampton guidance. Further, both Traveller and protestor injunctions are grounded in the Wolverhampton jurisdiction, and there should be a consistent approach on review. The approach taken in Basingstoke could be explained by the earlier judgment in May 2024, in which the Judge had urged caution to be taken upon review of the Order then being granted, which remarks were made with the absence of a negotiated stopping policy in mind. It follows that, on review of a Traveller injunction, the court should not start de novo or perform a full Wolverhampton assessment, absent a change of circumstances.
Whilst there have been several reviews of protestor injunctions in the 18 months since the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolverhampton, there have been relatively few reviews of Traveller injunctions, with most only coming to final hearing last year after the conclusion of the appeal. Following the detailed consideration of the issue in the Test Valley case, the question of the correct test to apply on a review of a Traveller injunction should now be settled.
Natalie appeared in Wolverhampton, Test Valley and Basingstoke, and specialises in Persons Unknown injunctions generally. If you would like more information on instructing Natalie, please contact the clerks.
