Leicestershire County Council v Louis Miles

Leicestershire County Council v Louis Miles

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving a continuous breach of planning control for ten years. The judge below was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the relevant change of use began in 2015, outside the statutory immunity period. The respondents and their counsel were not under a professional or procedural obligation to raise the ten year rule defence on the appellant's behalf, especially as it was not clearly articulated until closing submissions. The injunction and costs order were properly granted.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Leicestershire County Council; Claimant/respondent: Blaby District Council; Defendant/appellant: Mr Louis Miles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Statutory Immunity, Ten Year Rule, Professional Conduct of Advocates
Planning Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control 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 4 Authorities cited 4 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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to statutory immunity under the ten year rule for 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 proving a continuous breach of planning control for ten years. The judge below was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the relevant change of use began in 2015, outside the statutory immunity period. The respondents and their counsel were not under a professional or procedural obligation to raise the ten year rule defence on the appellant's behalf, especially as it was not clearly articulated until closing submissions. The injunction and costs order were 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