As fascinating as urban exploration is, this growing modern trend has certainly caused a stir where the law of trespass is concerned.
What is urban exploring?
Urban exploring or "Urbex" as it is commonly referred to, is a fairly recent term coined to describe the act of entering upon abandoned and dilapidated buildings or objects that are often fenced off or hidden out of plain sight. In more recent times, urban explorers have taken to scaling high-rise buildings under construction and using drones to capture 'invaluable'/highly sought-after footage. This footage is then often uploaded to various websites where urban explorers share their findings.
Do you need the landowner's permission?
Whilst the properties concerned tend to appear abandoned, the land will nevertheless be owned by someone. Entering someone's property without permission will amount to trespass.
What is trespass?
Trespass is a tortious law where the perpetrator enters a property without the consent, express or implied, of the person entitled to possession of the property. Note that trespass can also occur if the necessary consent is withdrawn and the perpetrator remains on the land thereafter.
Trespass is usually a civil offence; however, some acts of trespass are considered criminal offences. Taking and sharing photographs and videos of property, if done without the owner's permission, could amount to both civil trespass and a criminal offence.
What if the landowner's permission can't be obtained?
As stated above, entering someone's property without their permission will amount to trespassing, exposing the offending party to potential legal prosecution.
In this context, the risk of legal action may be dubious, especially when the landowner is missing in action or the property appears abandoned. Nevertheless, there remains a risk.
What action can a landowner take?
Subject to the risk and urgency of the offence, a landowner could pursue civil proceedings against the offender for trespass.
The usual remedy for a trespass claim would be an order for possession or damages to compensate for the loss suffered. However, urban explorers are usually only on the property for a short period of time, and they will have been and gone before a claim for trespass even gets off the ground.
Landowners often seek a civil injunction against the offenders as a preventative measure against further trespass.
An injunction is a Court order which, in these circumstances, will seek to prohibit the subjects from entering upon a particular premises, building, or curtailment of land. The advantage of an injunction is that it will carry criminal penalties, i.e. prison time, if it is breached, which provides a greater deterrent.
In February 2024, the Supreme Court confirmed that injunctions can be obtained against "persons unknown," including persons who are not identifiable at the time the order is granted but who may become offenders at a later date.
What preventive measures can be taken?
Landowners should take preventative measures to secure their premises if they are aware of urban explorers entering them or believe this to be a potential threat.
Such measures could include installing gates, fences, locks, cameras and even third-party security to secure the parameters and prevent access from being gained easily. Absent landowners may want to consider instructing a local property manager to inspect the premises regularly. Landowners will also often erect signs such as "Private Property", "No Trespassing", "Trespassers will be Prosecuted" to act as a deterrent.
What other concerns will landowners have?
- Risk of squatters if security is compromised
- Damage to the property
- Theft
- The risks of injury to trespassers and/or those in the vicinity
- Media exposure
- Publication of unauthorised materials
- Reputational damage
- Insurance sufficiency
- Nuisance claims from neighbours
- Costs
Case law
A growing number of cases have been heard before the Court on the subject of urban exploration and injunctions in light of trespass. Here are three examples:
Canary Wharf Investments v Brewer (2018)
In this case, urban explorers were climbing onto scaffolding, buildings, and cranes on premises in Canary Wharf and uploading video 'evidence' of this online. The footage uploaded contained details of gaining access to the site in question.
The landowner issued a claim against both identified and unidentified defendants and injunctions were awarded to prevent the trespass.
As regards the footage, this was settled outside of the Court process, with undertakings secured to the landowner's satisfaction, presumably the return of the footage and it not being further published.
Intu Milton Keynes v Taylor (2018)
This case concerned stunt bikers riding into shopping centres on vehicles and 'performing' stunts. When asked to leave, the bikers were purportedly aggressive and confrontational. Again, footage of this was uploaded to the internet.
A claim was issued against one named individual and two categories of "persons unknown", and injunctions were granted to stop the trespassers.
Anglo International Upholland Ltd V Wainwright & Persons Unknown (2023)
This case concerned urban explorers entering a dilapidated Catholic Seminary building in Manchester and using drones to capture footage. This footage was then uploaded to social media.
The trespassing continued despite the landowner's best efforts to secure the site. A claim was issued against a named individual and persons unknown, and the Court granted injunctions. The Court ruled that any future flying of drones over the premises in question by the perpetrators to capture footage would amount to a trespass and, thus, a breach of the injunction.
