Quia Timet Injunctions

Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch)

Developers facing the risk of trespassers coming onto vacant development sites and causing substantial damage will welcome the High Court's decision in Vastint Leeds BV v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch), where it ordered an injunction to prevent incursions by trespassers.

The facts

Vastint is the developer of the site at the former Tetley Brewery in Leeds. With its development taking place in phases, parts of the site were left vacant. Despite putting a number of security measures in place, there had been a number of incidents of trespass/attempted trespass, involving caravans, which had resulted in clean-up costs of about £25,000. One of Vastint's group companies had also been the victim of various incidents at a site in East London involving illegal raves. Vastint also referred to the increase in "professional" fly-tipping operations causing significant delay and irrecoverable costs to developers. Vastint was further concerned that, as the development works progressed, there would be increased safety risks with buildings being structurally unstable and the presence of asbestos.

To prevent the risks posed by travellers, those organising and participating in raves and illegal fly-tipping, Vastint applied to the Court for a quia timet injunction to prevent further incidents before they occurred. The developer considered that such an injunction would be a real deterrent to trespassers because of the penal notice it carries and attached risk of being in contempt of Court. Vastint further believed that it would help in getting assistance from the police (who, as developers will know, do not normally get involved in trespass of commercial premises unless proceedings are issued).

Injunction against persons inknown

It is well established that proceedings can be issued and an order made against an unnamed defendant where:

The name of the specific defendant is not known; There is a specific group/class of defendants but not all of their names are known; or The defendants are defined by reference to their future act of infringement. It was this third category that was at play here. Judge Smith confirmed that an order could be made against such a category of defendants provided that the description of the defendants is sufficiently clear (i.e. it should not require a legal interpretation or be subjective).

Quia timet injunctions

This is a preventive injunction, where no wrong has yet been...