The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Meier and Another [2009] UKSC 11 on 1 December 2009. In an appeal against an order of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) the Supreme Court had to consider the extent to which it was possible to make an order for possession over land which was not (at the time of the application) physically occupied by the defendants; a group of travellers who had set up their camp on land managed by the Forestry Commission and owned by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The defendants also appealed against an injunction restraining them from trespassing, living on or occupying parcels of land that extended beyond the area in which they were in actual occupation.

Allowing the appeal to the extent of setting aside the wider possession order, the Supreme Court held that the case of Secretary of State for Environment v Drury [2004] 1 WLR 1906 had illegitimately extended the reasoning in University of Essex v Djemal [1980] 1 WLR 1301; the fact that an order for possession can be made in respect of a single piece of land, only part of which is being occupied by trespassers does not justify the conclusion that an order for possession can be made against two entirely separate pieces of land, only one of which is occupied by trespassers, simply due to common ownership.