Developer secures injunction against "persons unknown" to prevent illegal raves at former brewery site

Recent police statistics have revealed that as nightclubs close their doors, the number of illegal raves in London has nearly doubled since 2016, providing new challenges for developers seeking to prevent trespassers over vacant sites. 

Many developers have found that removing unlawful occupiers is an expensive business. In practice costs are rarely recoverable from the wrongdoers meaning that landowners are left footing the bill for legal fees, bailiff costs and the costs of clearing up the damage to the site caused by the trespassers. However, the recent case of Vastint Leeds B.V. v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch) has confirmed that, in certain circumstances, developers have the ability to obtain a quia timet injunction in order to prevent a trespass which is threatened but not yet commenced even where the Defendant has not been identified.

The case has highlighted that developers and landowners can, and in many cases should, be taking a proactive approach to trespass and unlawful occupier issues, particularly given the serious impact that these incidents can have on the timetable for and costs of building out a scheme.

Facts

The Claimant company had the right to possession of the former Tetley Brewery site in Leeds. Despite security being present and the site being fenced off, there had been several trespass incidents involving caravans and the Claimant was further concerned about the possibility of fly tipping and illegal raves. The Claimant highlighted the health and safety risks the site posed to any trespasser because of the presence of unstable buildings and hazardous materials such as asbestos. The Claimant also expressed concerns about the dangers which would be on the site during the planned development such as heavy machinery and equipment and large excavation sites.  The Claimant therefore sought an injunction against persons unknown to prevent anyone without consent from entering or remaining on the site. 

The Court applied a two stage test when considering whether to grant the injunction:

1. Was there a strong probability that the anticipated defendant would act in breach of the Claimant's rights; and
2. If it did, would the harm done be so grave that it could not be undone by any post-breach intervention and/or compensation in damages? 

The Court considered that there was a strong possibility of further trespass at the site, considering the previous trespass incidents at the site notwithstanding the existing security measures, and the fact that an illegal rave had taken place on a site owned by the Claimant's sister company. It also considered there to be a "serious risk to life and limb" and that the likelihood that the Claimant would not be able to recover damages from any trespassers meant that grave harm could be done and compensation in damages would be unlikely to be adequate. It therefore granted the injunction. 

The case is also a useful reminder that defendants need not be named in proceedings and where a defendant's identity is uncertain, they can be identified by reference to that defendant's future act of infringement. 

Conclusion

This case will be of interest to developers and landowners who are concerned about both  traditional trespass issues and modern trespass infringements such as raves, graffiti and free running. We therefore may well see many more of these injunctions being sought by developers trying to emulate the success of the Claimant in this case.