Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Meier and others

Two main questions were before the Supreme Court:

On the first main question, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that a court could not make such an order. Lord Rodger considered that such an order would be inconsistent with the fundamental nature of an action for recovering land because there was nothing to recover [12]. Lord Neuberger, who agreed with Lord Rodger on this question, thought that it did not make sense to talk about a defendant being required to deliver up possession of land where the defendant did not occupy such land in any conceivable way, and the claimant enjoyed uninterrupted possession of it [64], [74] and [78]. Lords Rodger, Walker, Neuberger and Collins all thought that the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Drury [2004] EWCA Civ 200, [2004] 1 WLR 1906 had illegitimately extended the circumstances in which an order for possession could be made [5], [20], [72] and [96]. Lady Hale’s main objection to extending an order for possession in respect of distinct land which had not actually been intruded upon was one of natural justice. According to Lady Hale, the main problem with the current form of the usual order was that it was not specifically tailored against known individuals who had already intruded upon the claimant’s land, were threatening to do so again, and had been given a proper opportunity to contest the order [38] and [40].

On the second main question, Lord Rodger, Lady Hale and Lord Neuberger agreed that the majority in the Court of Appeal were right to grant an injunction in this case. Lord Neuberger, with whom Lord Rodger agreed on this question, noted that neither the Recorder nor the Court of Appeal had concluded that an injunction should be refused on the ground that it would not be enforced by imprisonment (because the defendants were vulnerable or had young children) or because it would have no real value (since travellers usually have few assets). The Court of Appeal had not erred in granting the injunction [84]. Lord Neuberger was also of the view that the failure by the Commission to comply with the “Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping” issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should not preclude the granting of an injunction to restrain travellers from trespassing on other land [87] and [91]. Lady Hale thought that the more natural remedy to deal with separate land which had not yet been intruded upon was an injunction against that intrusion, and one should not be unduly hesitant in granting that [39].

Observations were made to the effect that there may be a need for reform of the remedies available in this area [18], [40] and [94].