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 court refused to vary the injunction to permit continued occupation of the land pending planning determination, finding the defendants' breach of the order flagrant, the planning prospects insufficiently strong, and the public interest in upholding court orders and planning control overriding the personal circumstances advanced. The court emphasised that allowing occupation in contempt would undermine the authority of the court and the rule of law.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2101 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Ashford Borough Council; Defendant: David Stevens; Defendant: Robert Pieczonka; Defendant: Paige Williams; Defendant: John Hefferman; Defendant: Susan Hefferman; Defendant: John Ward; Defendant: Edward Mongan; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Injunction and Committal Application / Post Injunction, Hearing of Variation and Committal Applications
Outcome
Application to vary injunction refused; contempt admitted by some defendants; sentencing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR, Traveller/gypsy Accommodation, Variation of Court Orders
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Contempt of Court Planning Control 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashford Borough Council

Claimant

David Stevens

Defendant

Robert Pieczonka

Defendant

Paige Williams

Defendant

John Hefferman

Defendant

Susan Hefferman

Defendant

John Ward

Defendant

Edward Mongan

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction and Committal Application / Post Injunction, Hearing of Variation and Committal Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining development and occupation of land in breach of planning control should be varied to allow occupation pending planning determination
  2. 2 Whether contempt of court has occurred and should be sanctioned
  3. 3 Balancing Article 8 rights against public interest in enforcement of planning law

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to vary the injunction to permit continued occupation of the land pending planning determination, finding the defendants' breach of the order flagrant, the planning prospects insufficiently strong, and the public interest in upholding court orders and planning control overriding the personal circumstances advanced. The court emphasised that allowing occupation in contempt would undermine the authority of the court and the rule of law.

Court Disposition

Application to vary injunction refused; contempt admitted by some defendants; sentencing adjourned.

Orders

  • Injunction remains in force restraining occupation and development in breach of planning control.
  • Sentencing of Susan Hefferman, John Ward, and Paige Williams for contempt adjourned pending outcome of variation application.