St Edmundsbury Borough Council & Anor v Reynolds & Ors [2013] EWHC 737 (QB) (28 March 2013)

St Edmundsbury Borough Council & Anor v Reynolds & Ors [2013] EWHC 737 (QB) (28 March 2013)

The judge below correctly applied the legal principles regarding proportionality and responsibility in granting the injunction against the appellant in relation to Bardwell Hall Farm, but erred in extending the order to Great Carr Wood and in including the appellant in provisions relating to listed buildings and certain costs. The appellant's subjective fear did not absolve her of responsibility as owner, but her lack of real interest or control over Great Carr Wood made the injunction inappropriate as to that land.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 737 (QB)
Parties
First Claimant/respondent: St Edmundsbury Borough Council; Second Claimant/respondent: Suffolk County Council; 1st Defendant/1st Appellant: Marie Helene Reynolds; 2nd Defendant: Robert Marshall Reynolds; 3rd Defendant: Philip John Barty; 4th Defendant: Arthur Philips; 5th Defendant: Skycipher Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Injunction Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Ownership and Responsibility
Planning Law Human Rights Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Ownership and Responsibility

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Edmundsbury Borough Council

First Claimant/respondent

Suffolk County Council

Second Claimant/respondent

Marie Helene Reynolds

1st Defendant/1st Appellant

Robert Marshall Reynolds

2nd Defendant

Philip John Barty

3rd Defendant

Arthur Philips

4th Defendant

Skycipher Limited

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction against the appellant was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could realistically comply with the order given her circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the order should have included provisions relating to Great Carr Wood and listed buildings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below correctly applied the legal principles regarding proportionality and responsibility in granting the injunction against the appellant in relation to Bardwell Hall Farm, but erred in extending the order to Great Carr Wood and in including the appellant in provisions relating to listed buildings and certain costs. The appellant's subjective fear did not absolve her of responsibility as owner, but her lack of real interest or control over Great Carr Wood made the injunction inappropriate as to that land.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order against appellant relating to Great Carr Wood set aside
  • Order against appellant relating to listed buildings set aside