Slough Borough Council v Prashar & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 671 (14 May 2004)

Slough Borough Council v Prashar & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 671 (14 May 2004)

The court held that the injunction could properly extend beyond the area covered by enforcement notices where there was evidence of encroachment, and that the order should be amended to clarify that access across the land for lawful purposes should not be prohibited.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 671
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Slough Borough Council; First Defendant: Ashwani Kumar Prashar; Second Defendant/appellant: Balwant Raj Prashar; Third Defendant: Bimla Devi Prashar; Fourth Defendant: Vijai Kumar Prashar; Fifth Defendant: Ron Smith (Transport) Limited; Sixth Defendant: Jan De Risk Transport Limited; Seventh Defendant: PRS Distribution Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part; order amended
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement Notices, Planning Control, Jurisdictional Boundaries
Planning Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Enforcement Notices Planning Control Jurisdictional Boundaries

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Slough Borough Council

Claimant/respondent

Ashwani Kumar Prashar

First Defendant

Balwant Raj Prashar

Second Defendant/appellant

Bimla Devi Prashar

Third Defendant

Vijai Kumar Prashar

Fourth Defendant

Ron Smith (Transport) Limited

Fifth Defendant

Jan De Risk Transport Limited

Sixth Defendant

PRS Distribution Limited

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction should extend to the northern segment of Moor Lane not covered by enforcement notices
  2. 2 Whether the order should prohibit movement of vehicles across the land for access to land under another planning authority

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the injunction could properly extend beyond the area covered by enforcement notices where there was evidence of encroachment, and that the order should be amended to clarify that access across the land for lawful purposes should not be prohibited.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; order amended

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the order of Miss Davies QC to be amended as set out in the judgment, specifically clarifying the prohibition on movement and the land description.
  • No order as to costs.