Surrey Heath Borough Council v Robb & Ors [2020] EWHC 2014 (QB) (06 July 2020)

Surrey Heath Borough Council v Robb & Ors [2020] EWHC 2014 (QB) (06 July 2020)

The court held that the claimant had established a strong prima facie case of serious planning breaches, that the balance of convenience and justice favoured continuation of the injunction, and that the defendants had not demonstrated that the injunction would render them homeless or that their Article 6, 8, or 14 rights required variation. The injunction was proportionate and justified pending a speedy trial, with the defendants' rights protected by the imminent full hearing.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2014
Parties
Claimant: Surrey Heath Borough Council; Defendant: James Robb; Defendant: Suzanne Robb; Defendant: Thomas Robb Jnr; Defendant: Kaitlyn Robb; Defendant: Scarlett Rooney; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application Under S.187 B(1) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Interim Hearing Before Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction continued until trial; application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Planning Control, Green Belt, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Article 8 ECHR, Equality Act 2010, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Planning Control Green Belt Gypsy and Traveller Rights Article 8 ECHR +2 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surrey Heath Borough Council

Claimant

James Robb

Defendant

Suzanne Robb

Defendant

Thomas Robb Jnr

Defendant

Kaitlyn Robb

Defendant

Scarlett Rooney

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application Under S.187 B(1) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Interim Hearing Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should continue to restrain occupation and development of land by defendants pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' Article 6, 8, and 14 ECHR rights and the best interests of children require variation or discharge of the injunction
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and justice favours continuation of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant had established a strong prima facie case of serious planning breaches, that the balance of convenience and justice favoured continuation of the injunction, and that the defendants had not demonstrated that the injunction would render them homeless or that their Article 6, 8, or 14 rights required variation. The injunction was proportionate and justified pending a speedy trial, with the defendants' rights protected by the imminent full hearing.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued until trial; application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The injunction restraining occupation and development of the land by the defendants is continued until trial.
  • Directions for a speedy trial in the week commencing 24 August 2020 are made.