Waverley Borough Council v Anthony Martin Gray & Ors

Waverley Borough Council v Anthony Martin Gray & Ors

The application by D7 to suspend or vary the interim injunction is refused. The evidence does not sufficiently displace the strong presumptive case for continuation of the injunction. The balance of convenience and justice, public interest, and evidential uncertainty regarding family arrangements support maintaining the interim order pending trial. Applications by D13 and D14 are deferred to trial; their undertakings continue in force.

Parties
Claimant: Waverley Borough Council; Defendant: Anthony Martin Gray; Defendant: Philip Martin Gray; Defendant: Matthew Doherty; Defendant: Mary Doherty; Defendant: Mark Doherty; Defendant: Allana Doherty; Defendant: Barney Doherty; Defendant: Theresa Doherty; Defendant: John Doherty; Defendant: Mary Ann Doherty; Defendant: Wisdom Penfold; Defendant: Persons Unknown (Undertaking Operational Development on the Land Known as Stovald’s Hill, Cranleigh and/or Seeking to Use the Land for Caravan Use); Defendant: Thomas Doherty; Defendant: Simon Doherty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Applications Pending Trial
Outcome
Application by D7 refused; applications by D13 and D14 deferred to trial; interim injunctions and undertakings continue.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Planning Control, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Interim Relief, Article 8 ECHR, Equality Act, Children's Welfare
Planning Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Injunctions Planning Control Gypsy and Traveller Rights Interim Relief Article 8 ECHR +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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waverley Borough Council

Claimant

Anthony Martin Gray

Defendant

Philip Martin Gray

Defendant

Matthew Doherty

Defendant

Mary Doherty

Defendant

Mark Doherty

Defendant

Allana Doherty

Defendant

Barney Doherty

Defendant

Theresa Doherty

Defendant

John Doherty

Defendant

Mary Ann Doherty

Defendant

Wisdom Penfold

Defendant

Persons Unknown (Undertaking Operational Development on the Land Known as Stovald’s Hill, Cranleigh and/or Seeking to Use the Land for Caravan Use)

Defendant

Thomas Doherty

Defendant

Simon Doherty

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Applications Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether planning appeals by D13 and D14 must be exhausted before granting mandatory final injunctions
  2. 2 Appropriate form of injunction to restrain breach of planning control as regards D7, D13, and D14
  3. 3 Whether personal circumstances justify suspension or variation of interim injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

The application by D7 to suspend or vary the interim injunction is refused. The evidence does not sufficiently displace the strong presumptive case for continuation of the injunction. The balance of convenience and justice, public interest, and evidential uncertainty regarding family arrangements support maintaining the interim order pending trial. Applications by D13 and D14 are deferred to trial; their undertakings continue in force.

Court Disposition

Application by D7 refused; applications by D13 and D14 deferred to trial; interim injunctions and undertakings continue.

Orders

  • Interim injunction against D7 continues without variance or suspension.
  • Undertakings by D13 and D14 continue in full force and effect.