Epping Forest District Council v Mason & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1693 (4 November 2002)

Epping Forest District Council v Mason & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1693 (4 November 2002)

Permission to appeal was refused because the order under challenge did not expressly deal with the interim injunction, the application for permission to appeal was out of time, and there was no genuine underlying dispute as the appellants accepted they had no right to remain on the site. The judge's finding that Article 8 rights were not engaged in the circumstances was not a sufficient basis to grant permission to appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1693
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Epping Forest District Council; Defendant/appellant: William Mason; Defendant/appellant: Stephen Mason; Defendant/appellant: Peter Delaney; Defendant/appellant: Persons Unknown; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Delaney; Defendant/appellant: James Delaney; Defendant/appellant: John Delaney; Defendant/appellant: Michael William Delaney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Planning Enforcement, Interim and Permanent Injunctions, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Planning Enforcement Interim and Permanent Injunctions Procedural Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Epping Forest District Council

Applicant/respondent

William Mason

Defendant/appellant

Stephen Mason

Defendant/appellant

Peter Delaney

Defendant/appellant

Persons Unknown

Defendant/appellant

Thomas Delaney

Defendant/appellant

James Delaney

Defendant/appellant

John Delaney

Defendant/appellant

Michael William Delaney

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 8 ECHR rights were engaged by the grant of an interim injunction preventing occupation of land by gypsies
  2. 2 Whether the period of suspension of the permanent injunction was adequate
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant permission to appeal out of time against the interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was refused because the order under challenge did not expressly deal with the interim injunction, the application for permission to appeal was out of time, and there was no genuine underlying dispute as the appellants accepted they had no right to remain on the site. The judge's finding that Article 8 rights were not engaged in the circumstances was not a sufficient basis to grant permission to appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Detailed assessment of appellant's publicly funded costs ordered