Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb & Ors [2011] EWHC 1626 (QB) (27 June 2011)

Broxbourne Borough Council v Robb & Ors [2011] EWHC 1626 (QB) (27 June 2011)

The authority of court orders and the need to uphold the rule of law outweigh the personal circumstances and Article 8 rights of Mr Beary and his family. The council's application for committal is lawful and proportionate, and the injunction should not be varied to permit continued breach. The council has had due regard to equality duties, and any flaws can be remedied by the court. The planning appeal does not have real prospects of success, and the absence of alternative sites does not justify contempt of court.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1626
Parties
Claimant: Broxbourne Borough Council; Defendants: Robb and others; Second Defendant: Mr Beary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court / Committal Application / Judgment on Committal and Variation of Injunction
Outcome
Application for committal granted; application to vary injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Planning Permission, Green Belt Policy, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Article 8 ECHR, Race Relations Act 1976
Planning Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Injunctions Contempt of Court Planning Permission Green Belt Policy Gypsy and Traveller Rights +2 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Broxbourne Borough Council

Claimant

Robb and others

Defendants

Mr Beary

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court / Committal Application / Judgment on Committal and Variation of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council's application for committal is lawful and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether the injunction should be varied to allow continued occupation pending planning appeal
  3. 3 Whether Mr Beary's breach of the injunction warrants committal

Ratio Decidendi

The authority of court orders and the need to uphold the rule of law outweigh the personal circumstances and Article 8 rights of Mr Beary and his family. The council's application for committal is lawful and proportionate, and the injunction should not be varied to permit continued breach. The council has had due regard to equality duties, and any flaws can be remedied by the court. The planning appeal does not have real prospects of success, and the absence of alternative sites does not justify contempt of court.

Court Disposition

Application for committal granted; application to vary injunction refused.

Orders

  • Mr Beary is committed for contempt of court for breach of the injunction.
  • The injunction prohibiting residential occupation of plot 19 remains in force.