Dyer & Anor v Webb & Ors [2023] EWHC 1917 (KB) (10 July 2023)

Dyer & Anor v Webb & Ors [2023] EWHC 1917 (KB) (10 July 2023)

The applicants failed to demonstrate that the respondents' planning objections or related conduct were unreasonable, spurious, or amounted to harassment. The evidence did not establish that the respondents' actions were oppressive or malicious rather than genuine exercises of their rights. The threshold for restraining freedom of expression and assembly was not met. Interim injunctive relief was refused.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1917 (KB)
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
10 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (pre Action) / Interim Relief Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Harassment, Planning Objections, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Human Rights Act 1998
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Interim Injunctions Harassment Planning Objections Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly +2 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Interim Injunction Application (pre Action) / Interim Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain respondents from making planning objections alleged to be harassment
  2. 2 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain other acts of alleged harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate that the respondents' planning objections or related conduct were unreasonable, spurious, or amounted to harassment. The evidence did not establish that the respondents' actions were oppressive or malicious rather than genuine exercises of their rights. The threshold for restraining freedom of expression and assembly was not met. Interim injunctive relief was refused.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunctions against planning objections and alleged harassment dismissed
  • No order for interim relief