Marcus Trower v Elmbridge Borough Council

Marcus Trower v Elmbridge Borough Council

The Order was unlawful because it failed to include a relaxation of the prohibition on mooring when upstream Environment Agency river warnings were in force, rendering the Order irrational and not within the statutory criteria. The other grounds of challenge were dismissed as the Council's actions were within the range of reasonable responses, the consultation and equality assessments were adequate, and the Order was not otherwise disproportionate or procedurally unfair.

Parties
Claimant: Marcus Trower; Defendant: Elmbridge Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge Under the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; Order quashed on Ground 1; all other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Public Spaces Protection Orders (pspo), Consultation Requirements, Proportionality, Public Sector Equality Duty (psed), Article 8 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Local Government Law Human Rights Law Equality Law Public Spaces Protection Orders (pspo) Consultation Requirements Proportionality Public Sector Equality Duty (psed) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcus Trower

Claimant

Elmbridge Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge Under the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the PSPO was too uncertain to be enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Council had reasonable grounds to conclude the statutory conditions for a PSPO were met
  3. 3 Whether the prohibitions in the Order were reasonable and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Order was unlawful because it failed to include a relaxation of the prohibition on mooring when upstream Environment Agency river warnings were in force, rendering the Order irrational and not within the statutory criteria. The other grounds of challenge were dismissed as the Council's actions were within the range of reasonable responses, the consultation and equality assessments were adequate, and the Order was not otherwise disproportionate or procedurally unfair.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; Order quashed on Ground 1; all other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • The Public Spaces Protection Order is quashed for failure to include upstream river warning exceptions.
  • No further relief granted on other grounds.