Brentwood Borough Council v Ball & Ors

Brentwood Borough Council v Ball & Ors

The court refused to grant an injunction because, on the evidence, the hardship to the Defendants and their families, including the absence of alternative accommodation and the impact on children’s education and welfare, outweighed the public interest in immediate enforcement of planning law. The Council failed to properly consider hardship and proportionality before seeking the injunction. There was also a real prospect of success in the Defendants’ pending planning appeal, making an injunction at this stage disproportionate.

Parties
Claimant: Brentwood Borough Council; Defendant: Ball & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction Under Planning Law / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application for injunction refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act, Green Belt Development, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life), Discretion in Granting Injunctions, Hardship and Proportionality, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision
Planning Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act Green Belt Development Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home and Family Life) Discretion in Granting Injunctions Hardship and Proportionality Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brentwood Borough Council

Claimant

Ball & Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction Under Planning Law / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an injunction should be granted under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain breaches of planning control by the Defendants on Green Belt land
  2. 2 Whether the hardship to the Defendants and their families outweighs the public interest in enforcing planning law
  3. 3 Whether the Council properly exercised its discretion and considered proportionality and hardship before seeking an injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant an injunction because, on the evidence, the hardship to the Defendants and their families, including the absence of alternative accommodation and the impact on children’s education and welfare, outweighed the public interest in immediate enforcement of planning law. The Council failed to properly consider hardship and proportionality before seeking the injunction. There was also a real prospect of success in the Defendants’ pending planning appeal, making an injunction at this stage disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction refused