Leicestershire County Council & Anor v Miles (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1782 (KB) (11 July 2024)

Leicestershire County Council & Anor v Miles (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1782 (KB) (11 July 2024)

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show a continuous breach of planning control for ten years prior to enforcement. The judge below was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the relevant change of use began in 2015, outside the ten year period. The respondents and their counsel were not under a professional or procedural obligation to raise the ten year rule defence in the circumstances of this case. The injunction was properly granted.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1782 (KB)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Leicestershire County Council; Claimant / Respondent: Blaby District Council; Defendant / Appellant: Mr Louis Miles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order Granting Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Planning Enforcement, Statutory Immunity, Ten Year Rule, Professional Conduct of Advocates
Planning Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Planning Enforcement Statutory Immunity Ten Year Rule Professional Conduct of Advocates

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leicestershire County Council

Claimant / Respondent

Blaby District Council

Claimant / Respondent

Mr Louis Miles

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order Granting Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to statutory immunity under the ten year rule for a breach of planning control
  2. 2 Whether the respondents and their counsel were obliged to draw the ten year rule to the court's attention
  3. 3 Whether the judge below erred in granting an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show a continuous breach of planning control for ten years prior to enforcement. The judge below was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the relevant change of use began in 2015, outside the ten year period. The respondents and their counsel were not under a professional or procedural obligation to raise the ten year rule defence in the circumstances of this case. The injunction was properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction against the appellant upheld
  • Appellant to pay the second claimant's costs of £15,000 by 11 October 2022