Waverley Borough Council v Anthony Martin Gray & Ors
The court declined to grant a final injunction against the main defendants (D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D13, D14) and discharged the interim injunction, finding that the claimant failed to properly consider and re-evaluate the significant welfare needs and best interests of the children once on notice, and that there were no alternative sites available. The planning status was not final due to pending appeals, and the hardship to the families would be disproportionate. However, final injunctions in negative form were granted against D1, D2, D4, D9, D10, D11, and persons unknown, who played no active part or were only peripherally involved.
- Parties
- Claimant: Waverley Borough Council; Defendant: Anthony Martin Gray; Defendant: Philip Martin Gray; Defendant: Mathew Doherty; Defendant: Mary Doherty; Defendant: Mark Doherty; Defendant: Allana Doherty; Defendant: Barney Doherty; Defendant: Theresa Doherty; Defendant: John Doherty; Defendant: Mary Anne Doherty; Defendant: Wisdom Penfold; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendant: Thomas Doherty; Defendant: Simon Doherty
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (planning/injunction) / Final Judgment on Application for Final Injunction
- Outcome
- Final injunction refused and interim injunction discharged for main defendants; final injunctions in negative form granted against certain other defendants and persons unknown.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions Under S.187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, Article 8 ECHR (private and Family Life), Best Interests of Children, Proportionality, Enforcement of Planning Control
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Waverley Borough Council
Claimant
Anthony Martin Gray
Defendant
Philip Martin Gray
Defendant
Mathew Doherty
Defendant
Mary Doherty
Defendant
Mark Doherty
Defendant
Allana Doherty
Defendant
Barney Doherty
Defendant
Theresa Doherty
Defendant
John Doherty
Defendant
Mary Anne Doherty
Defendant
Wisdom Penfold
Defendant
Persons Unknown
Defendant
Thomas Doherty
Defendant
Simon Doherty
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (planning/injunction) / Final Judgment on Application for Final Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted to restrain unauthorised development and occupation of land by Gypsy and Traveller families
- 2 Whether the claimant local authority properly considered the personal circumstances and best interests of children before seeking final injunctive relief
- 3 Whether the grant of a final injunction is proportionate and just in all the circumstances, including the absence of alternative sites and the impact on the defendants' Article 8 rights
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant a final injunction against the main defendants (D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D13, D14) and discharged the interim injunction, finding that the claimant failed to properly consider and re-evaluate the significant welfare needs and best interests of the children once on notice, and that there were no alternative sites available. The planning status was not final due to pending appeals, and the hardship to the families would be disproportionate. However, final injunctions in negative form were granted against D1, D2, D4, D9, D10, D11, and persons unknown, who played no active part or were only peripherally involved.
Court Disposition
Final injunction refused and interim injunction discharged for main defendants; final injunctions in negative form granted against certain other defendants and persons unknown.
Orders
- Final injunction refused and interim injunction discharged as against D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D13, D14.
- Final injunctions in negative form granted against D1, D2, D4, D9, D10, D11, and persons unknown.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment