At a hearing in the High Court in June, Scott Tuppen's submissions that it is a fundamental requirement of justice that parties affected by an injunction, who haven’t yet been heard by the court, should be permitted to apply to vary the injunction, even where it is a final injunction, was accepted by the court.

The local authority who had obtained the injunction asserted that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to vary its own order, and that only the Court of Appeal could now consider the matter. The authority was seeking to have the defendants committed for contempt of court for alleged breaches of the injunction, and opposed the application to vary.

The injunction was obtained at an earlier hearing by the local authority, against a large number of named and unnamed members of the travellers’ community. At that hearing when the final injunction was granted, some of those impacted by the injunction sought to give oral evidence, but the judge refused to allow it.

Some of those affected by the injunction later applied to vary the injunction, but the local authority argued that the travellers should be 'barred' from applying to vary the order. 

Scott’s submissions relied on the conclusions of Nicklin J in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham1 case which, although reversed on appeal, was later considered by the Supreme Court along with several other similar conjoined cases. The Supreme Court2 found that injunctions granted against unknown persons should always include generous liberty to any person affected by it to apply to vary or discharge the injunction.

Scott was instructed by AGI Solicitors. Jerome Birch of 33 Bedford Row, Alan Masters of 1 Pump Court and Tim Baldwin of Garden Court Chambers appeared for the other co-defendants.

 

• 1 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) (12 May 2021)
• 2 Wolverhampton City Council and others (Respondents) v London Gypsies and Travellers and others (Appellants) [2023] UKSC 47