Ashford Borough Council v Stevens & Ors

Ashford Borough Council v Stevens & Ors

The court refused to vary the injunction because the occupation of the land was unlawful, the planning merits had already been determined against residential use, the personal circumstances and Article 8 rights of the applicants did not outweigh the public interest in upholding court orders, and variation would undermine the authority of the court and the rule of law.

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 / Ruling on Application to Vary Injunction and Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Application to vary injunction refused; injunction remains in force.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Planning Permission, Traveller and Gypsy Accommodation, Article 8 ECHR, Enforcement Notices
Planning Law Human Rights Law Local Government Law Injunctions Contempt of Court Planning Permission Traveller and Gypsy Accommodation Article 8 ECHR +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 / Ruling on Application to Vary Injunction and Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining use of land for residential purposes should be varied to allow occupation pending planning determination
  2. 2 Whether contempt of court has occurred by breach of injunction
  3. 3 Whether personal circumstances and Article 8 rights justify variation of injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to vary the injunction because the occupation of the land was unlawful, the planning merits had already been determined against residential use, the personal circumstances and Article 8 rights of the applicants did not outweigh the public interest in upholding court orders, and variation would undermine the authority of the court and the rule of law.

Court Disposition

Application to vary injunction refused; injunction remains in force.

Orders

  • No further residential occupation of the land unless and until planning permission is granted.
  • Counsel to be heard on time needed for removal of mobile homes and caravans and consequential orders.