The flexible application of Newcomer Injunctions – recent decisions and issues

The ruling confirmed that such injunctions, which restrain individuals not yet identified and who may trespass in the future, are permissible where the claimants can demonstrate a sufficiently strong legal interest in the land, a real and imminent risk of unlawful activity, and that injunctive relief is a proportionate response. This judgment has now led to a wider and more innovative deployment of the newcomer injunction remedy in various legal contexts, as envisaged by the Supreme Court's dicta that newcomer injunctions had a wide range of applicability: "including industrial picketing, environmental and other protests, breaches of confidence, breaches of intellectual property rights, and a wide variety of unlawful activities related to social media".

This article explores how the courts have flexibly applied the Wolverhampton principles in four recent cases:

1. Various university cases: Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 724 (KB) (21 March 2025); Trinity College v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1577 (Ch); University of Birmingham v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1770 (KB)

Over the past year, several English universities have sought injunctions to prevent protestors and activists from unlawfully occupying its land and causing disruption to normal university operations. There are several injunctions other than those above which have not yet been reported.  The university applicants have sought possession orders and interim injunctions against persons unknown who have been protesting in connection with Palestine. In these cases, summary possession orders were sought to secure immediate possession of the universities' land and interim injunctions converted into final injunctions preventing protesters from entering or remaining on the universities' property.

Similar injunctions on the basis of trespass, nuisance and harassment against protestors and activists have been granted in several cases in the past, including, notably, Canada Goose v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 2459 (QB), which was a progenitor of the newcomer injunction granted in Wolverhampton. However, these injunctions are reflective of a growing trend by UK universities to injunct protestors, raising human rights considerations (specifically Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly) and 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions), which the Court has had to carefully balance.

In the Cambridge cases, the injunctions were granted for a period of twelve months, which the applicants have the opportunity to renew. This demonstrates the Court's increasing caution granting newcomer injunctions for prolonged periods of time, which can be contrasted with the earlier decision in Jockey Club Racecourses Limited v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1786 (Ch), where a newcomer injunction preventing protestor trespass on Epsom racecourse was granted for a period of five years.

2. AQA Education v Persons Unknown (2025)

AQA Education, a national exam board, secured the first digital newcomer injunction to prevent anonymous individuals from acquiring and distributing exam question papers prior to the examinations taking place. The theft of AQA's confidential information had in the past caused significant disruption and undermined the integrity of examinations, with stolen papers surfacing on encrypted messaging and social media platforms days before exams.

Fieldfisher, acting for AQA, relied on the Wolverhampton framework to argue that the injunction was necessary, proportionate, and targeted a real risk of imminent further breaches. The High Court agreed, issuing an injunction binding on anyone with notice of the order, which is posted on AQA's website. This decision opens the door for digital newcomer injunctions to become a vital tool in combating online misconduct where perpetrators are anonymous and transient.

3. MBR Acres Ltd v Curtin & Others [2025] EWHC 331 (KB)

MBR Acres, a research organisation breeding animals for scientific purposes, faced persistent protests including trespass, obstruction of highways, and intimidation of staff. Following multiple incidents, they sought a newcomer injunction against further protestors potentially acting in concert with known activists.

The novel issue examined in this case was whether whether newcomer injunctions could be extended to prohibit the use of drones by protestors over the claimant's site.

The court accepted that trespass by drone could only occur when a drone flies directly over the claimant's land. The claimants had no right to prevent drones flying near or adjacent to the site—only directly above it.

The key question was at what height such drone use constitutes trespass. The judge held that only interference with the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land could qualify. The evidence showed drones were often flown at around 50 metres. The judge concluded that flying a small drone briefly at that height did not amount to trespass, as it did not interfere with the claimant’s ordinary use of the land.

The court criticised the claimants for failing to produce expert evidence on drone height and positioning, making it impossible to substantiate their claims against persons unknown. The court noted that the true grievance of the claimants related to filming and surveillance, not the physical presence of the drone. They were attempting to use trespass law to restrain a perceived invasion of privacy, which was not a valid basis for a trespass claim. The judge emphasised that other legal avenues—such as nuisance, misuse of private information, or data protection law—might address those concerns, but were not pleaded.

Although the court ultimately granted a newcomer injunction in general terms, it refused to extend it to prohibit drone use at a specific altitude, namely below 100 metres, due to the lack of reliable evidence and the absence of a credible risk of trespass from drone use.

Whilst relief against drone flying was denied in this instance, the court indicated that privacy-related concerns arising from aerial filming could be the subject of a newcomer injunction, which could, for example, be utilised by individuals to prevent media intrusion on the basis of misuse of private information in the future.

4. Credit Agricole CIB v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 1346 (Ch)

Whilst not strictly a newcomer injunction, the law developed in Wolverhampton was used in this case by the claimant bank to solve a novel problem. The bank held numerous safety deposit boxes in its possession which it (and relevant predecessor entities) had held for between 44 and 122 years and, in relation to which, was unable to trace, or communicate with, the owners or their successors in title. The bank sought relief permitting sale of the items in the boxes to which they could not trace the owners of successors in title. However, given that the owners or successors were persons unknown, could not serve any declaration on those persons or the claim itself.

The bank successfully argued that the steps they had taken to draw the claim to the attention of all those likely to be affected by was appropriate in a newcomer injunction context. The Bank had advertised the proceedings on its website, in the Gazette and The Times and the Court held this was sufficient to have brought the claim to the attention of persons unknown, granting an order dispensing with service.

The future

The Supreme Court in Wolverhampton has provided clarity and confidence for rights-holders seeking injunctive relief against unidentified wrongdoers. The cases above show that the doctrine now applies not only in traditional land trespass scenarios but across digital, protest, and cybercrime contexts. As the above cases have demonstrated, the courts have shown themselves willing increasingly to grant flexible, targeted, and innovative relief.