Are possession orders or injunctions the answer to threatened trespass? asks Malcolm Dowden
The Supreme Court ruled in Secretary of State for Environment etc v Meier [2009] UKSC 11, [2009] All ER (D) 16 (Dec) that the court cannot make a possession order for land that is not yet occupied by trespassers but it can order an injunction to prohibit future occupation of other land.
In Meier, travellers had established an unauthorised camp in a wood managed by the Forestry Commission and owned by the secretary of state. The secretary of state applied for a possession order and injunction in respect of the wood and of 13 other woods to which it was feared the travellers might go if moved. The identities of some, but not all, of those involved were known to the Commission. So the defendants included “persons unknown”.
Despite this, the claim was for an injunction against all the defendants, including those described as “all persons currently living on or occupying the claimant’s land at Hethfelton”. The recorder refused the wider possession
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
