Salisbury District Council v Le Roi [2001] EWCA Civ 1490 (3 October 2001)

Salisbury District Council v Le Roi [2001] EWCA Civ 1490 (3 October 2001)

The appeal was dismissed because the estoppel argument could not succeed against statutory planning enforcement, there was no jurisdiction to vary or discharge the original injunction absent changed circumstances, Article 8 ECHR was not breached on the facts, and delay by the Council did not justify withholding enforcement. The original order requiring demolition stood, and the appellant remained in contempt for non-compliance.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1490
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Salisbury District Council; Appellant/defendant: Le Roi (also referred to as Mr Williams)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Planning Control, Estoppel Against Public Authorities, Article 8 ECHR (right to Family Life), Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Delay in Enforcement
Planning Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Enforcement of Planning Control Estoppel Against Public Authorities Article 8 ECHR (right to Family Life) Injunctions Contempt of Court +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salisbury District Council

Respondent/claimant

Le Roi (also referred to as Mr Williams)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant could resist enforcement of an injunction to demolish a building on grounds of estoppel or Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to vary or discharge an injunction granted by another judge in the absence of changed circumstances
  3. 3 Whether delay by the local authority in enforcement justified withholding relief

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the estoppel argument could not succeed against statutory planning enforcement, there was no jurisdiction to vary or discharge the original injunction absent changed circumstances, Article 8 ECHR was not breached on the facts, and delay by the Council did not justify withholding enforcement. The original order requiring demolition stood, and the appellant remained in contempt for non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to comply with the order of Mr David Steel QC within 16 weeks of the judgment
  • In default of compliance, three months' imprisonment for contempt of court