Between 2015 and 2020, a number of local authorities obtained injunctions designed to prevent Gypsies and Travellers from camping on local authority land without permission. The injunctions were addressed to "persons unknown" because the Gypsies and Travellers who might wish to camp on a particular site could not generally be identified in advance. At the time the injunctions were granted, these unknown persons, or newcomers, had not yet camped, or threatened to camp, on the local authority land without permission, or to commit any other relevant unlawful activity. The local authorities obtained the injunctions without notifying any other party, at hearings where the interests of Gypsies and Travellers were not represented.
From around mid-2020, the local authorities made applications to extend or vary injunctions which were coming to an end. After a hearing in one of these cases, the High Court judge decided that there was a need to review all newcomer injunctions affecting Gypsies and Travellers. He gave the appellants, who represent the interests of Gypsies and Travellers, permission to intervene so that the interests of Gypsies and Travellers could be represented. Following the review hearing, the judge concluded that the court did not have the power to grant newcomer injunctions, except on a short-term, interim basis. He therefore made a series of orders discharging the newcomer injunctions obtained by the local authorities.
The Court of Appeal held that the court had the power to grant newcomer injunctions, and allowed the local authorities' appeal. The appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr Afzal was originally granted limited leave to remain until 14 April 2013 on 4 February 2010. He was subsequently granted further leave to remain until 14 July 2017 as a Tier 1 entrepreneur.
On 6 July 2017, before his leave had expired, Mr Afzal applied for an extension of leave, but the application was rejected as invalid by a notice dated 22 January 2018, due to Mr Afzal having failed to pay one of the required fees. Mr Afzal made no attempt to challenge that decision.
Mr Afzal then made a fresh application on 2 February 2018 for further leave to remain, accompanied by the appropriate fees. On 5 September 2019 Mr Afzal was given leave to remain until 4 March 2022. In the period between 14 July 2017 and 5 September 2019, therefore, Mr Afzal did not have formal leave to remain.
Mr Afzal made an application for indefinite leave to remain on 28 February 2020, for which one must have ten years' continuous residence pursuant to paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules. On 11 March 2020 the Secretary of State refused that application on the basis that there was a period when Mr Afzal was not lawfully resident with the consequence that the period of continuous lawful residence had been broken.
Leave to bring judicial review proceedings of the Secretary of State's decision was refused by two Upper Tribunal Judges, the first on the papers and the second after an oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted leave to bring judicial review but dismissed Mr Afzal's claim. Mr Afzal now appeals to the Supreme Court.