Wychavon District Council v Rafferty & Ors

Wychavon District Council v Rafferty & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to vary the injunction, having properly balanced the appellants' Article 8 rights, hardship, and the public interest in upholding planning control. The judge was not required to reassess the planning merits, and his assessment that the planning appeal was not hopeless but lacked a real prospect of success was not perverse. The committal order for contempt was appropriate given the admitted breach and the availability of alternative accommodation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Wychavon District Council; Defendant/appellant: Wisdom Rafferty; Defendant/appellant: Jane Rafferty; Defendant/appellant: Dawn Connors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Planning Permission, Article 8 ECHR, Homelessness, Gypsy and Traveller Rights
Planning Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Injunctions Contempt of Court Planning Permission Article 8 ECHR Homelessness +1 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wychavon District Council

Claimant/respondent

Wisdom Rafferty

Defendant/appellant

Jane Rafferty

Defendant/appellant

Dawn Connors

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to vary an injunction restraining residential use of land pending a planning appeal
  2. 2 Whether the committal order for contempt was appropriate and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the court gave adequate consideration to Article 8 ECHR rights and alternative accommodation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to vary the injunction, having properly balanced the appellants' Article 8 rights, hardship, and the public interest in upholding planning control. The judge was not required to reassess the planning merits, and his assessment that the planning appeal was not hopeless but lacked a real prospect of success was not perverse. The committal order for contempt was appropriate given the admitted breach and the availability of alternative accommodation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed with costs against the Legal Services Commission