East Herts District Council v Flynn & Ors [2025] EWHC 1458 (KB) (13 June 2025)

East Herts District Council v Flynn & Ors [2025] EWHC 1458 (KB) (13 June 2025)

A final injunction is necessary and proportionate to restrain ongoing and flagrant breaches of planning control where the Defendants have failed to comply with an Enforcement Notice despite extended time and offers of assistance, and where alternative remedies would not be effective. The best interests of the Defendants' children and the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community have been considered but do not outweigh the public interest in upholding planning policy and the integrity of the planning system.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1458 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: East Herts District Council; First Defendant: Patrick Joseph Flynn; Second Defendant: Selina Diana O'Leary; Third Defendant: BJS Sports Limited; Fourth Defendant: Billy Joe Saunders
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim for Final Injunctive Relief / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Final injunction granted (prohibitory and mandatory) against the First, Second, and Third Defendants; proceedings against the Fourth Defendant discontinued; costs awarded to Claimant against First and Second Defendants.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement Notice, Green Belt, Traveller Sites, Children's Welfare, Equality Act, Proportionality
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Injunctions Enforcement Notice Green Belt Traveller Sites Children's Welfare +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East Herts District Council

Claimant

Patrick Joseph Flynn

First Defendant

Selina Diana O'Leary

Second Defendant

BJS Sports Limited

Third Defendant

Billy Joe Saunders

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim for Final Injunctive Relief / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted to restrain breaches of planning control under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the grant of an injunction is necessary and proportionate given the personal circumstances of the Defendants, including the best interests of their children and the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community
  3. 3 Whether alternative enforcement measures would be effective or proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

A final injunction is necessary and proportionate to restrain ongoing and flagrant breaches of planning control where the Defendants have failed to comply with an Enforcement Notice despite extended time and offers of assistance, and where alternative remedies would not be effective. The best interests of the Defendants' children and the accommodation needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community have been considered but do not outweigh the public interest in upholding planning policy and the integrity of the planning system.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted (prohibitory and mandatory) against the First, Second, and Third Defendants; proceedings against the Fourth Defendant discontinued; costs awarded to Claimant against First and Second Defendants.

Orders

  • First, Second, and Third Defendants are restrained from further breaches of planning control and required to remove the static home/chalet, other paraphernalia, and hardstanding from the Land within nine months (six months for removal of residential items, three months for hardstanding).
  • Proceedings against the Fourth Defendant discontinued with no order as to costs.