St Edmundsbury Borough Council & Anor v Reynolds & Ors

St Edmundsbury Borough Council & Anor v Reynolds & Ors

The judge below correctly applied the legal principles regarding proportionality and responsibility for planning breaches in relation to Bardwell Hall Farm, but erred in extending the injunction to Great Carr Wood where the appellant's interest was insufficient to justify the order. The costs order also required amendment to reflect the proper apportionment of liability.

Parties
First Claimant/respondent: St Edmundsbury Borough Council; Second Claimant/respondent: Suffolk County Council; First Defendant/appellant: Marie Helene Reynolds; Second Defendant: Robert Marshall Reynolds; Third Defendant: Philip John Barty; Fourth Defendant: Arthur Philips; Fifth Defendant: Skycipher Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Injunction Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Proportionality of Injunctive Relief, Enforcement of Planning Control, Ownership and Responsibility for Land, Costs Orders
Planning Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Under Section 187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Proportionality of Injunctive Relief Enforcement of Planning Control Ownership and Responsibility for Land Costs Orders

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 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

First Defendant/appellant

Robert Marshall Reynolds

Second Defendant

Philip John Barty

Third Defendant

Arthur Philips

Fourth Defendant

Skycipher Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction against the appellant was a disproportionate interference with her Article 8 rights
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could realistically comply with the injunction given her circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had sufficient interest in Great Carr Wood to justify the order against her

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below correctly applied the legal principles regarding proportionality and responsibility for planning breaches in relation to Bardwell Hall Farm, but erred in extending the injunction to Great Carr Wood where the appellant's interest was insufficient to justify the order. The costs order also required amendment to reflect the proper apportionment of liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Injunction against appellant in respect of Great Carr Wood set aside
  • Order against appellant under paragraph 4 (listed building) set aside