Surrey Heath Borough Council v Robb & Ors

Surrey Heath Borough Council v Robb & Ors

The interim injunction should be continued because there is a strong prima facie case of serious planning breaches, the balance of convenience favours the claimant, and the defendants have not provided sufficient evidence that they would be rendered homeless or that their rights would be disproportionately infringed. The imminent speedy trial will allow full consideration of the merits and cross-examination, so interim relief is proportionate and justified.

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
Civil / Interim Injunction Application (return Date) With Directions for Speedy Trial
Outcome
interim injunction continued until trial; application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Unauthorised Development, Green Belt, Gypsy and Traveller Rights, Balance of Convenience, Article 8 ECHR, Planning Permission, Heritage Protection
Planning Law Public Law Human Rights Injunctions Unauthorised Development Green Belt Gypsy and Traveller Rights Balance of Convenience +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 13 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

Civil / Interim Injunction Application (return Date) With Directions for Speedy Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be continued to restrain residential occupation and development of land by the defendants pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' Article 6 and 8 ECHR rights, and the interests of children, preclude the grant of interim relief
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the claimant or the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction should be continued because there is a strong prima facie case of serious planning breaches, the balance of convenience favours the claimant, and the defendants have not provided sufficient evidence that they would be rendered homeless or that their rights would be disproportionately infringed. The imminent speedy trial will allow full consideration of the merits and cross-examination, so interim relief is proportionate and justified.

Court Disposition

interim injunction continued until trial; application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

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