Davis & Ors. v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council

Davis & Ors. v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had correctly exercised his discretion under section 187B, properly balancing the hardship to the appellants against the public interest in enforcing planning controls. The grant of an injunction was a proportionate response, given the seriousness and persistence of the planning breach, the sensitivity of the site, and the deliberate unlawful conduct of the appellants, notwithstanding the hardship caused by eviction.

Parties
Appellant: Lyn Marie Davis & Ors.; Respondent: Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Green Belt Policy, Special Landscape Area, Enforcement of Planning Control, Proportionality, Discretion in Granting Injunctions
Planning Law Human Rights Law Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Green Belt Policy Special Landscape Area Enforcement of Planning Control Proportionality +1 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lyn Marie Davis & Ors.

Appellant

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of injunctive relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was appropriate and proportionate given the hardship to the appellants and their Article 8 rights
  2. 2 Whether the judge exercised his discretion correctly in granting the injunction, or was excessively deferential to planning authorities
  3. 3 Whether alternative remedies to injunction (self-help, criminal proceedings) were practical or appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had correctly exercised his discretion under section 187B, properly balancing the hardship to the appellants against the public interest in enforcing planning controls. The grant of an injunction was a proportionate response, given the seriousness and persistence of the planning breach, the sensitivity of the site, and the deliberate unlawful conduct of the appellants, notwithstanding the hardship caused by eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction granted requiring appellants to vacate the site
  • Application for leave to appeal to House of Lords refused