MacClesfield Borough Council v McMahon [2001] EWCA Civ 1366 (23 August 2001)

MacClesfield Borough Council v McMahon [2001] EWCA Civ 1366 (23 August 2001)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the breaches of planning control were independently established, the planning procedures had been properly followed, and the injunction was a proportionate and necessary interference with the applicants' qualified rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants' arguments did not afford a sufficient prospect of success for the grant of permission to appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1366
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Macclesfield Borough Council; Applicant/defendant: Paul McMahon; Applicant/defendant: Catherine Ann McMahon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Planning Control, Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home), Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (property Rights), Proportionality Under Human Rights Act 1998
Planning Law Human Rights Law Enforcement of Planning Control Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home) Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (property Rights) Proportionality Under Human Rights Act 1998

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macclesfield Borough Council

Respondent/claimant

Paul McMahon

Applicant/defendant

Catherine Ann McMahon

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal, Extension of Time, and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of planning control justifying an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction was compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1
  3. 3 Whether the proportionality test under the Human Rights Act 1998 was properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because the breaches of planning control were independently established, the planning procedures had been properly followed, and the injunction was a proportionate and necessary interference with the applicants' qualified rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants' arguments did not afford a sufficient prospect of success for the grant of permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Detailed assessment of applicants' community service funding