King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council v Smith & Anor [2009] EWHC 2615 (QB) (23 October 2009)

King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council v Smith & Anor [2009] EWHC 2615 (QB) (23 October 2009)

Given the defendants' flagrant and knowing breach of planning controls and a court order, the lack of realistic prospects for planning permission, the availability of alternative accommodation, and the limited weight of their personal circumstances, it is just and proportionate to continue the injunction and refuse the application to vary or discharge it.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2615
Parties
Claimant: King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council; Defendant: Julie Ann Smith; Defendant: Lisa Mary Ingram
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary or Discharge Injunction (planning Enforcement) / Post Injunction, Post Committal, Application to Vary/discharge
Outcome
Application to vary or discharge the injunction refused; injunction continues.
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under S187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home), Proportionality in Enforcement, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, Contempt of Court
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Under S187 B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home) Proportionality in Enforcement Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Contempt of Court

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

King's Lynn & West Norfolk Council

Claimant

Julie Ann Smith

Defendant

Lisa Mary Ingram

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary or Discharge Injunction (planning Enforcement) / Post Injunction, Post Committal, Application to Vary/discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction restraining residential use of land should be varied or discharged in light of defendants' circumstances and Article 8 ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' breaches and conduct justify continuation of the injunction
  3. 3 Whether alternative accommodation and planning prospects affect proportionality of enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

Given the defendants' flagrant and knowing breach of planning controls and a court order, the lack of realistic prospects for planning permission, the availability of alternative accommodation, and the limited weight of their personal circumstances, it is just and proportionate to continue the injunction and refuse the application to vary or discharge it.

Court Disposition

Application to vary or discharge the injunction refused; injunction continues.

Orders

  • The injunction restraining residential use of the land continues in force.
  • Application to vary or discharge the injunction is dismissed.