Who? William Rose, partner, Sharpe Pritchard. 

William Rose

Why is he in the news? Coordinated appeals by several councils in the Court of Appeal, which overturned the High Court’s ‘Traveller injunctions’ ruling that final injunctions could not be granted against persons unknown who have not been identified at the time of the injunction in unauthorised encampment cases. Local authorities can now obtain final prohibitory and precautionary injunctions.

Thoughts on the case: ‘The judgment will be a great relief to local authorities caught between tight budgets and pressure from residents to deal with unauthorised encampments on their land. In essence, the CoA judgment confirmed the ability of local authorities to apply to the court to seek injunctions against “persons unknown”, allowing newcomers to be party to an injunction even after litigation has ended. The decision means final injunctions can bind newcomers and there is no distinction between interim and final injunctions in this context.

‘Had the previous judgment stood, it would have become more difficult and probably more expensive for authorities to evict people from unauthorised encampments.

‘The result has a wider application and is not just limited to the Gypsy and Traveller community. It allows local authorities to seek injunctive relief against persons unknown in cases such as car cruising, urban explorers, restraining raves and protesters.’

Dealing with the media: ‘Intriguingly, the decision at first instance was covered by a wide range of media outlets but coverage of the Court of Appeal judgment has thus far been restricted to the planning, local government and legal press. One reason might be that the full practical implications of the judgment are yet to become clear. Another is that the judgment in some ways takes us back to the status quo ante and may not be the final say on the matter, with the prospect of it going to the Supreme Court.’

Why become a lawyer? ‘I like arguing! The win-loss dynamic really focuses the mind.’

Career high: ‘On four separate occasions I have had people committed to prison for contempt of court, having breached injunctions I obtained. I take no pleasure in seeing people go to prison but, to be effective, injunctions must be backed up with serious consequences. Too often, local authorities feel they are not.’

Career low: ‘The moment, years ago, when our crucial expert witness fainted en route to the witness box, before being revived, only for things to go further downhill with a mauling on cross-examination.’

Topics