Thurrock Council v Martin Stokes & Ors

Thurrock Council v Martin Stokes & Ors

The claims against all remaining named defendants were dismissed. The court found that Thurrock Council failed to prove, on the evidence, that the relevant defendants had committed or credibly threatened further breaches of planning control or fly-tipping. The Council's approach to evidence, notification, and service was procedurally unfair and unreliable. The wide, borough-wide injunctions sought were not necessary or proportionate, and the Council failed to carry out a proper proportionality assessment or consider individual circumstances. The court refused to grant any injunctions against the named defendants.

Parties
Claimant: Thurrock Council; Defendant: Martin Stokes; Defendant: Brian Murphy; Defendant: Brian Stokes; Defendant: Brian Stokes (2nd); Defendant: Charles Lansky; Defendant: Charlie McDonagh; Defendant: Clarence Bulmer; Defendant: Danny Hallissey; Defendant: Declan McLeod; Defendant: Dennis Doherty; Defendant: Edward Lowther; Defendant: Ellen McDonagh; Defendant: John Bryan; Defendant: John Connors; Defendant: John Keenan; Defendant: John McDonagh; Defendant: John O’Brian; Defendant: Lawrence Connors; Defendant: Luke Connors; Defendant: Mark Ryan; Defendant: Martin Lawrence; Defendant: Martin McDonagh; Defendant: Martin McDonagh (2nd); Defendant: Mary Boland; Defendant: Mary Mullane; Defendant: Michaela McKenzie; Defendant: Andrew Cash; Defendant: Antoney Doherty; Defendant: Antoney Doherty (2nd); Defendant: Barry Smith; Defendant: Fred Mason; Defendant: Hughie Mason; Defendant: Michael McKay; Defendant: William Connors; Defendant: Josie Doran; Defendant: Nicola Tomlinson; Defendant: Patrick Connors; Defendant: Patrick McDonagh; Defendant: Patrick McDonagh (2nd); Defendant: Patrick McDonagh (3rd); Defendant: Patrick McDonagh (4th); Defendant: Patrick Stokes; Defendant: Patrick Stokes (2nd); Defendant: Robert McDonagh; Defendant: Sidney Smith; Defendant: Simon Connolly; Defendant: Thomas Keenan; Defendant: Tom Ward; Defendant: William O’Donnaghue; Defendant: William Stokes; Defendant: Winifred McDonagh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (part 8 Claim) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims against all remaining named defendants dismissed; interim injunctions discharged.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Planning Enforcement, Gypsies and Travellers, Service of Process, Proportionality, Human Rights, Equality Act, Public Nuisance
Planning Law Public Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Planning Enforcement Gypsies and Travellers Service of Process Proportionality +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurrock Council

Claimant

Martin Stokes

Defendant

Brian Murphy

Defendant

Brian Stokes

Defendant

Brian Stokes (2nd)

Defendant

Charles Lansky

Defendant

Charlie McDonagh

Defendant

Clarence Bulmer

Defendant

Danny Hallissey

Defendant

Declan McLeod

Defendant

Dennis Doherty

Defendant

Edward Lowther

Defendant

Ellen McDonagh

Defendant

John Bryan

Defendant

John Connors

Defendant

John Keenan

Defendant

John McDonagh

Defendant

John O’Brian

Defendant

Lawrence Connors

Defendant

Luke Connors

Defendant

Mark Ryan

Defendant

Martin Lawrence

Defendant

Martin McDonagh

Defendant

Martin McDonagh (2nd)

Defendant

Mary Boland

Defendant

Mary Mullane

Defendant

Michaela McKenzie

Defendant

Andrew Cash

Defendant

Antoney Doherty

Defendant

Antoney Doherty (2nd)

Defendant

Barry Smith

Defendant

Fred Mason

Defendant

Hughie Mason

Defendant

Michael McKay

Defendant

William Connors

Defendant

Josie Doran

Defendant

Nicola Tomlinson

Defendant

Patrick Connors

Defendant

Patrick McDonagh

Defendant

Patrick McDonagh (2nd)

Defendant

Patrick McDonagh (3rd)

Defendant

Patrick McDonagh (4th)

Defendant

Patrick Stokes

Defendant

Patrick Stokes (2nd)

Defendant

Robert McDonagh

Defendant

Sidney Smith

Defendant

Simon Connolly

Defendant

Thomas Keenan

Defendant

Tom Ward

Defendant

William O’Donnaghue

Defendant

William Stokes

Defendant

Winifred McDonagh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (part 8 Claim) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Thurrock Council is entitled to final injunctive relief against named defendants for alleged unauthorised encampments and/or fly-tipping under s.187B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and/or s.222 Local Government Act 1972;
  2. 2 Whether the claims against each named defendant are proved on the evidence;
  3. 3 Whether the form and scope of the injunction sought is necessary and proportionate;

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against all remaining named defendants were dismissed. The court found that Thurrock Council failed to prove, on the evidence, that the relevant defendants had committed or credibly threatened further breaches of planning control or fly-tipping. The Council's approach to evidence, notification, and service was procedurally unfair and unreliable. The wide, borough-wide injunctions sought were not necessary or proportionate, and the Council failed to carry out a proper proportionality assessment or consider individual circumstances. The court refused to grant any injunctions against the named defendants.

Court Disposition

Claims against all remaining named defendants dismissed; interim injunctions discharged.

Orders

  • All claims against named defendants are dismissed.
  • No injunctions granted against any named defendant.