Waverley Borough Council v Gray & Ors [2023] EWHC 670 (KB) (29 March 2023)

Waverley Borough Council v Gray & Ors [2023] EWHC 670 (KB) (29 March 2023)

The interim injunction against D7 should not be suspended or varied. The evidence does not displace the strong presumptive case for the Claimant. The court is not satisfied that the Claimant failed to consider personal circumstances or welfare needs. The balance of convenience and justice, public interest, and the need to uphold planning control and court orders require continuation of the interim injunction pending trial. Applications by D13 and D14 to vary are deferred to trial; undertakings continue in force.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 670 (KB)
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
Interim Applications in Planning Enforcement Proceedings / Interim Relief Pending Trial
Outcome
Applications to suspend or vary interim injunctions refused; interim injunctions continue; costs in the case.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Planning Control, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Human Rights (article 8 Echr), Equality Act 2010, Proportionality, Enforcement Powers
Planning Law Public Law Interim Injunctions Planning Control Gypsy and Traveller Rights Human Rights (article 8 Echr) Equality Act 2010 Proportionality +1 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 8 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

Interim Applications in Planning Enforcement Proceedings / Interim Relief Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether planning appeals by D13 and D14 must be exhausted before granting a mandatory final injunction
  2. 2 What form of injunction is appropriate to restrain breach of planning control as regards D7, D13, and D14
  3. 3 Whether interim injunction against D7 should be suspended to permit continued occupation

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction against D7 should not be suspended or varied. The evidence does not displace the strong presumptive case for the Claimant. The court is not satisfied that the Claimant failed to consider personal circumstances or welfare needs. The balance of convenience and justice, public interest, and the need to uphold planning control and court orders require continuation of the interim injunction pending trial. Applications by D13 and D14 to vary are deferred to trial; undertakings continue in force.

Court Disposition

Applications to suspend or vary interim injunctions refused; interim injunctions continue; costs in the case.

Orders

  • Application by D7 to suspend or vary interim injunction refused; order of 11 November 2022 continues without variance or suspension.
  • Applications by D13 and D14 to vary deferred to trial; undertakings continue in full force and effect.