St Edmundsbury Borough Council & Anor v Reynolds & Ors [2013] EWHC 737 (QB) (28 March 2013)

St Edmundsbury Borough Council & Anor v Reynolds & Ors [2013] EWHC 737 (QB) (28 March 2013)

The judge below correctly applied the legal principles regarding proportionality and hardship, and the appellant's subjective fear did not justify her inactivity; however, the appellant's inclusion in the injunction regarding Great Carr Wood was not justified due to lack of sufficient interest or control, and certain provisions regarding listed buildings and costs were not properly applied.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 737
Parties
First Claimant/respondent: St Edmundsbury Borough Council; Second Claimant/respondent: Suffolk County Council; 1st Defendant/1st Appellant: Marie Helene Reynolds; 2nd Defendant: Robert Marshall Reynolds; 3rd Defendant: Philip John Barty; 4th Defendant: Arthur Philips; 5th Defendant: Skycipher Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Injunction Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality, Enforcement of Planning Control, Listed Buildings Enforcement
Planning Law Human Rights Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Enforcement of Planning Control Listed Buildings Enforcement

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

1st Defendant/1st Appellant

Robert Marshall Reynolds

2nd Defendant

Philip John Barty

3rd Defendant

Arthur Philips

4th Defendant

Skycipher Limited

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction under s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was proportionate regarding the appellant's Article 8 rights
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had sufficient interest/control in Great Carr Wood to justify inclusion in the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the injunction extended beyond the scope of antecedent enforcement notices

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below correctly applied the legal principles regarding proportionality and hardship, and the appellant's subjective fear did not justify her inactivity; however, the appellant's inclusion in the injunction regarding Great Carr Wood was not justified due to lack of sufficient interest or control, and certain provisions regarding listed buildings and costs were not properly applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • References to Great Carr Wood in the injunction order (paragraphs 1j-k) deleted as against the appellant
  • Provisions regarding listed buildings (paragraph 4) deleted as against the appellant