Mark Randolph Dyer & Anor v Patricia Webb & Ors

Mark Randolph Dyer & Anor v Patricia Webb & Ors

The applicants failed to establish that the respondents' planning objections or conduct were unreasonable, spurious, or amounted to harassment. The evidence did not show a likelihood of success at trial, nor did it justify interference with the respondents' Convention rights. Damages would be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured refusal of the injunctions. There was no urgency or interests of justice justifying pre-action relief.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Mark Randolph Dyer; Applicant/claimant: Clare Alexandra Pandora Dyer; Respondent/defendant: Patricia Webb; Respondent/defendant: David Aymer Small; Respondent/defendant: Susan Eileen Small; Respondent/defendant: Dr Andrew Cross
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (interim Injunction Application) / Interim Application for Injunction (pre Action)
Outcome
Application for interim injunctions dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Planning Law, Neighbour Disputes
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Interim Injunctions Harassment Freedom of Expression Planning Law Neighbour Disputes

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Randolph Dyer

Applicant/claimant

Clare Alexandra Pandora Dyer

Applicant/claimant

Patricia Webb

Respondent/defendant

David Aymer Small

Respondent/defendant

Susan Eileen Small

Respondent/defendant

Dr Andrew Cross

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (interim Injunction Application) / Interim Application for Injunction (pre Action)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an interim injunction restraining the respondents from making planning objections allegedly amounting to harassment
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant an interim injunction restraining acts of alleged harassment by the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish that the respondents' planning objections or conduct were unreasonable, spurious, or amounted to harassment. The evidence did not show a likelihood of success at trial, nor did it justify interference with the respondents' Convention rights. Damages would be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured refusal of the injunctions. There was no urgency or interests of justice justifying pre-action relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunctions dismissed

Orders

  • Application for injunctions to restrain planning objections dismissed
  • Application for injunctions to restrain alleged harassment dismissed