BASILDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v THOMAS ANDERSON & Ors

BASILDON BOROUGH COUNCIL v THOMAS ANDERSON & Ors

There has been no significant change in circumstances since the undertaking was given; the threats and difficulties were known and could have been addressed through further engagement with the police or local authority. The third defendant's absence from the jurisdiction is to avoid the consequences of non-compliance, not due to an inability to comply. The application to vary the undertaking is refused as it would undermine the rule of law.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Basildon Borough Council; Third Defendant/respondent: Thomas Anderson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Contempt/committal (planning) / Application to Vary/discharge Committal Order and Undertaking
Outcome
Application to vary the undertaking refused; committal proceedings to proceed in absence of the third defendant.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Variation of Undertakings, Enforcement of Planning Injunctions, Suspended Sentences
Civil Procedure Planning Law Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Variation of Undertakings Enforcement of Planning Injunctions Suspended Sentences

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basildon Borough Council

Claimant/applicant

Thomas Anderson

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Contempt/committal (planning) / Application to Vary/discharge Committal Order and Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a significant change in circumstances to justify varying or discharging the undertaking given by the third defendant to remove the access road
  2. 2 Whether the third defendant should be permitted to be heard remotely after absconding the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether threats of violence and fear for safety constitute a sufficient basis for non-compliance with a court order

Ratio Decidendi

There has been no significant change in circumstances since the undertaking was given; the threats and difficulties were known and could have been addressed through further engagement with the police or local authority. The third defendant's absence from the jurisdiction is to avoid the consequences of non-compliance, not due to an inability to comply. The application to vary the undertaking is refused as it would undermine the rule of law.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the undertaking refused; committal proceedings to proceed in absence of the third defendant.

Orders

  • Application to vary or discharge the undertaking is dismissed.
  • The matter to proceed to consider committal in the absence of the third defendant.