[2008] EWCA Civ 903, 31 July 2008. If a landowner seeking a possession order in respect of threatened trespass was able to establish a real danger of occupation, the court was not bound to grant the order. It was found, however, that the court should only refuse such an order in exceptional circumstances. Appellant (SoS) appealed against the decision to grant a possession order against respondent travellers (M). M had previously occupied Forestry Commission land illegally. SoS sought a possession order for the current site; possession orders for roughly 25 sites that it feared M might move to and and injunction against M entering these sites. The recorder had granted the first application, but not the second or third. Held: appeal allowed. The first issue was proving a real danger of occupation; or whether the court had a general discretion to grant orders. The court was found to have discretion and the recorder who had not granted the second and third applications was found to be wrong. The extended possession order and the injunction sought complemented each other and there was no reason not to grant them on the same facts as the granting of the possession order for the current site. The order to grant an injunction against M was discretionary but necessary to uphold the rule of law against a threatened invasion.