Ashford Borough Council v Stevens & Ors [2018] EWHC 2101 (QB) (03 August 2018)

Ashford Borough Council v Stevens & Ors [2018] EWHC 2101 (QB) (03 August 2018)

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the defendants flagrantly breached a court order by occupying and developing the land in defiance of the injunction, and their personal circumstances, while serious, did not outweigh the strong public interest in upholding planning control and the authority of the court. Allowing continued occupation would undermine respect for court orders and the rule of law. There was insufficient evidence of a real prospect of planning permission being granted to justify a variation.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2101
Parties
Claimant: Ashford Borough Council; Defendant: David Stevens; Defendant: Robert Pieczonka; Defendant: Paige Williams; Defendant: John Hefferman; Defendant: Susan Hefferman (also known as Suzanne Hefferman or Susan Williams); Defendant: John Ward; Defendant: Edward Mongan; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Injunction and Committal Proceedings (planning Enforcement) / Hearing of Applications to Commit for Contempt and to Vary Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary injunction refused; committal proceedings for admitted contemnors adjourned for sentencing; directions given for further evidence and hearings.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Planning Enforcement, Article 8 ECHR, Traveller/gypsy Accommodation, Variation of Court Orders
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Contempt of Court Planning Enforcement Article 8 ECHR Traveller/gypsy Accommodation +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashford Borough Council

Claimant

David Stevens

Defendant

Robert Pieczonka

Defendant

Paige Williams

Defendant

John Hefferman

Defendant

Susan Hefferman (also known as Suzanne Hefferman or Susan Williams)

Defendant

John Ward

Defendant

Edward Mongan

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction and Committal Proceedings (planning Enforcement) / Hearing of Applications to Commit for Contempt and to Vary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining use and development of land in breach of planning control should be varied to allow occupation pending planning appeals
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are in contempt of court for breach of the injunction
  3. 3 How to balance Article 8 rights and personal circumstances against the need to enforce planning control and court orders

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the defendants flagrantly breached a court order by occupying and developing the land in defiance of the injunction, and their personal circumstances, while serious, did not outweigh the strong public interest in upholding planning control and the authority of the court. Allowing continued occupation would undermine respect for court orders and the rule of law. There was insufficient evidence of a real prospect of planning permission being granted to justify a variation.

Court Disposition

Application to vary injunction refused; committal proceedings for admitted contemnors adjourned for sentencing; directions given for further evidence and hearings.

Orders

  • Refusal of Paige Williams' application to vary the injunction.
  • Adjournment of sentencing for admitted contemnors (Susan Hefferman, John Ward, Paige Williams).