Chelmsford City Council v Leisure Parks Real Estate (Holdings) Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 1978 (QB) (22 June 2021)

Chelmsford City Council v Leisure Parks Real Estate (Holdings) Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 1978 (QB) (22 June 2021)

The breaches of the injunction were serious but unintentional, and the defendants acted to remedy them; fines are appropriate given the circumstances, resources, and mitigation, with no imprisonment or suspended sentence justified.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1978
Parties
Claimant: Chelmsford City Council; First Defendant: Leisure Parks Real Estate (Holdings) Limited; Second Defendant: James Robert Crickmore; Third Defendant: Colin Crickmore; Fourth Defendant: Maurice Sines; Fifth Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Application for Committal and Sentencing
Outcome
Application for committal dismissed against third and fifth defendants; fines imposed on second and fourth defendants; no further penalty on first defendant.
Legal Topics
Breach of Injunction, Greenbelt Land, Planning Enforcement, Sentencing for Contempt
Planning Law Contempt of Court Breach of Injunction Greenbelt Land Planning Enforcement Sentencing for Contempt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chelmsford City Council

Claimant

Leisure Parks Real Estate (Holdings) Limited

First Defendant

James Robert Crickmore

Second Defendant

Colin Crickmore

Third Defendant

Maurice Sines

Fourth Defendant

Persons Unknown

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Application for Committal and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached the terms of a court injunction relating to planning control
  2. 2 Appropriate penalty for contempt of court
  3. 3 Mitigation and aggravation in sentencing for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The breaches of the injunction were serious but unintentional, and the defendants acted to remedy them; fines are appropriate given the circumstances, resources, and mitigation, with no imprisonment or suspended sentence justified.

Court Disposition

Application for committal dismissed against third and fifth defendants; fines imposed on second and fourth defendants; no further penalty on first defendant.

Orders

  • Order varied to discharge injunction against fifth defendants.
  • Second and fourth defendants fined £10,000 each.