Anderson & Ors v Basildon District Council

Anderson & Ors v Basildon District Council

The committal orders and suspended sentences were a proper and proportionate response to the appellants' deliberate and ongoing breaches of planning injunctions; compliance with court orders was not precluded by Covid-19 regulations, and the judge's approach to timing and mitigation was fair and within his discretion.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Charles Anderson; Appellant/defendant: Brian McGinley; Appellant/defendant: Freddie Anderson; Appellant/defendant: Gerry (Jerry) Anderson; Appellant/defendant: Bridget McDonagh; Appellant/defendant: John McDonagh; Appellant/defendant: Patrick Collins; Appellant/defendant: Thomas Cleary; Respondent/claimant: Basildon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Orders (sentence Only)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Suspended Sentences, Planning Injunctions, Covid 19 Regulations and Compliance, Green Belt Development, Traveller/gypsy Site Enforcement
Civil Procedure Planning Law Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Suspended Sentences Planning Injunctions Covid 19 Regulations and Compliance Green Belt Development +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Anderson

Appellant/defendant

Brian McGinley

Appellant/defendant

Freddie Anderson

Appellant/defendant

Gerry (Jerry) Anderson

Appellant/defendant

Bridget McDonagh

Appellant/defendant

John McDonagh

Appellant/defendant

Patrick Collins

Appellant/defendant

Thomas Cleary

Appellant/defendant

Basildon District Council

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Orders (sentence Only)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal sentences and conditions imposed for breach of planning injunctions were lawful and proportionate in light of Covid-19 restrictions and appellants' personal circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred by sentencing for breaches during a period allegedly covered by superseding orders
  3. 3 Whether compliance with court orders would have required appellants to breach Covid-19 regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The committal orders and suspended sentences were a proper and proportionate response to the appellants' deliberate and ongoing breaches of planning injunctions; compliance with court orders was not precluded by Covid-19 regulations, and the judge's approach to timing and mitigation was fair and within his discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Committal orders and suspended sentences upheld
  • Time for compliance with condition (a) varied to 12 noon on Monday 22 March 2021