Mid Sussex District Council v Boyle [2002] EWCA Civ 8447 (17 May 2002)

Mid Sussex District Council v Boyle [2002] EWCA Civ 8447 (17 May 2002)

The application for permission to appeal was refused because, even applying the proportionality and hardship considerations set out in South Bucks District Council v Porter, the evidence of hardship to the occupier and her son was insubstantial, the planning history and enforcement notices were clear, and the Council was entitled to the injunction. The 1989 letter did not create an estoppel or materially affect the Council's right to enforce.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 8447
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mid Sussex District Council; Defendant/appellant: William Charles Boyle; Interested Party: Lucia Elliston
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Injunction
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Town & Country Planning Act 1990 S.187 B, Enforcement of Planning Control, Personal Occupancy Conditions, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions), Discretion in Granting Injunctions, Proportionality Under Human Rights Act 1998
Planning Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Under Town & Country Planning Act 1990 S.187 B Enforcement of Planning Control Personal Occupancy Conditions Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) Discretion in Granting Injunctions +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mid Sussex District Council

Claimant/respondent

William Charles Boyle

Defendant/appellant

Lucia Elliston

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Against Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction granted under s.187B of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 should be set aside or refused in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Convention rights of the occupier and her child
  2. 2 Whether the judge exercised his discretion correctly in granting the injunction, particularly considering the hardship to the occupier and her son
  3. 3 Whether a 1989 letter from the Council created an estoppel or binding determination affecting enforcement action

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because, even applying the proportionality and hardship considerations set out in South Bucks District Council v Porter, the evidence of hardship to the occupier and her son was insubstantial, the planning history and enforcement notices were clear, and the Council was entitled to the injunction. The 1989 letter did not create an estoppel or materially affect the Council's right to enforce.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • No order for costs