Traveller site injunction to remain in place following High Court ruling

In Dacorum Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2026] EWHC 1174 (KB), Mr Jonathan Glasson KC concluded the injunction is “appropriate and necessary for the attainment of the public objective sought” and is “proportionate in the particular circumstances where the Intended Defendants have moved on to the Land subsequent to the Injunction and in flagrant defiance of the order”.

The injunction was originally granted when Dacorum Borough Council took urgent legal action after an "unauthorised encampment" appeared near Flamstead, Hertfordshire, on Easter Sunday (5 April).

According to the BBC, Flamstead Parish Council said diggers and bulldozers arrived at a field in the village in the Chiltern Hills on Thursday 2 April.

To halt work, a temporary stop notice was issued by the borough council, followed by an emergency court injunction.

On 7 May 2026, Mr Jonathan Glasson heard the following three applications:

a) An application by Dacorum Borough Council (the Claimant) for the continuance of the without notice Injunction pursuant to section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the Act”) made by Cheema Grubb J on 5 April 2026 (“the Injunction”).

b) An application by the Claimant for the following to be added as parties: Geraldine McDonagh, Michael Ward, Martin McDonagh, Charlene McDonagh, Thomas McDonagh, Martin Ward, Cindy Ward, Mary Donovan, Thomas Ward, Kellie Ward, Michael Gerrard Ward, Teresa Ward, Joshua McDonagh, Donna McDonagh, Bridget McDonagh, Michael Carter, Jodie Ward, Thomas Donovan, Helen Rochford, John Paul Mongan, Martina Ward, and Chloe Ward (“the Intended Defendants”); and

c) An application by the proposed additional Defendants for the Injunction to be discharged or, alternatively, to be varied. In the event that it was varied then the Intended Defendants applied for the return hearing to be adjourned until the determination of their application for planning permission.

Outlining evidence from the Intended Defendants, the judge said: “The Indended Defendants have served eleven short witness statements. They bear a noted similarity to one another.

Each witness statement states that the occupation of the Land began on 3 April 2026.”

He added: “The Intended Defendants also state that they have faced hostility from local residents since moving on to the land. They refer to where they lived previously. Mr Michael Ward says “[w]e were often living roadside and doubling up on other traveller sites”.”

The judge found there had been unauthorised development of the land and that this had continued, despite the injunction.

He said: " I cannot accept the Intended Defendants’ evidence that they were in occupation on 3 April 2026 as alleged in their witness statements.

“Nor can I accept the submission that they were “in occupation” at the date of the Injunction. Those assertions are flatly contradicted by the photographic evidence.”

Granting the council’s application to continue to interim Injunction pending a final hearing, the judge said: “Continuing the Injunction is appropriate and necessary for the attainment of the public objective sought and is proportionate in the particular circumstances here where the Intended Defendants have moved on to the Land subsequent to the Injunction and in flagrant defiance of the order. For these reasons, the balance of convenience in the circumstances here comes down in favour of continuing the Injunction as against the Intended Defendants.

“I am satisfied that the Claimant complied in full with the disclosure duty which attached to the making of a without notice application and that it has similarly complied with that duty in its evidence for the hearing before me. The Claimant has demonstrated that, on the particular facts, it was just and convenient in all the circumstances that the injunction sought should be made. There is no practical alternative to the Injunction as shown by the fact that the Temporary Stop Notice was ignored.”

Mr Jonathan Glasson KC additionally granted the council’s application for the Intended Defendants to be added as parties to the Injunction and refused the Intended Defendant’s application to discharge or to vary the Injunction.

Dacorum Borough Council has been approached for comment.