Royal Borough Of Kensington & Chelsea v Harvey Nichols & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 702 (4 May, 2001)

Royal Borough Of Kensington & Chelsea v Harvey Nichols & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 702 (4 May, 2001)

The advertisement was not incorporated in the fabric of the scaffold within the meaning of Class D of Schedule 2 to the 1992 Regulations, as the screen was a detachable fixture and lacked the permanence and integration required; therefore, express consent was required and its absence constituted a breach of planning control, justifying the grant of a mandatory injunction.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 702
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea; First Defendant: Harvey Nichols; Second Defendant/appellant: Mega Profile Limited; Third Defendant: Modifin UK Limited (T/a Versace)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Control of Advertisements, Definition of Building, Planning Permission, Injunctions, Interpretation of Statutes
Planning Law Administrative Law Control of Advertisements Definition of Building Planning Permission Injunctions Interpretation of Statutes

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Claimant/respondent

Harvey Nichols

First Defendant

Mega Profile Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Modifin UK Limited (T/a Versace)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a scaffold is a 'building' under section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether an advertisement digitally incorporated into a PVC screen attached to a scaffold is 'incorporated in the fabric of a building' under Class D of Schedule 2 to the 1992 Regulations
  3. 3 Whether express consent was required for the advertisement

Ratio Decidendi

The advertisement was not incorporated in the fabric of the scaffold within the meaning of Class D of Schedule 2 to the 1992 Regulations, as the screen was a detachable fixture and lacked the permanence and integration required; therefore, express consent was required and its absence constituted a breach of planning control, justifying the grant of a mandatory injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed summarily at £3,000
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused