Hertsmere Borough Council v Harty & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1238 (21 June 2001)

Hertsmere Borough Council v Harty & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1238 (21 June 2001)

Permission to appeal should be restricted to grounds 3 and 4 (as amended) because, in light of the full transcript and proper legal analysis, only the issues concerning the treatment of Article 8 ECHR as a planning consideration and the adequacy of the Article 8 balancing exercise remain arguable. The duty to make...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1238
Parties
Appellant: Hertsmere Borough Council; Respondent: Dominic Harty; Respondent: John Casey; Respondent: Mr Smith; Respondent: Aaron Jones; Respondent: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Set Aside Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Civil Procedure Rules, Welfare Inquiries, Permission to Appeal
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Civil Procedure Rules Welfare Inquiries +1 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hertsmere Borough Council

Appellant

Dominic Harty

Respondent

John Casey

Respondent

Mr Smith

Respondent

Aaron Jones

Respondent

Persons Unknown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Set Aside Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be set aside due to incomplete or inaccurate materials before the judge
  2. 2 Whether the local authority was required to carry out welfare inquiries before seeking an injunction
  3. 3 Whether the Council acted compatibly with Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal should be restricted to grounds 3 and 4 (as amended) because, in light of the full transcript and proper legal analysis, only the issues concerning the treatment of Article 8 ECHR as a planning consideration and the adequacy of the Article 8 balancing exercise remain arguable. The duty to make welfare inquiries does not extend to duplicating information already provided by solicitors.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • Permission to appeal restricted to grounds 3 and 4 (as amended)
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal