Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Casey & Ors [2024] EWHC 2252 (KB) (25 July 2024)

Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Casey & Ors [2024] EWHC 2252 (KB) (25 July 2024)

Interim injunctions were granted against the sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants and persons unknown because there was compelling evidence of ongoing and recent breaches of planning control and previous court orders, the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the legal requirements for joinder and relief against persons unknown were satisfied.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2252 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES; Defendant: Michael Casey; Defendant: Bridget Casey; Defendant: Simon Doherty; Defendant: Kathleen Doherty; Defendant: Persons Unknown, being those persons causing or permitting works to be undertaken, or waste or other material to be deposited on the land, and/or bringing onto or occupying caravans or mobile homes on the land or intending to do so, other than in accordance with a valid grant of planning permission; Defendant: Tom Doherty; Defendant: Thomas Casey; Defendant: Michael Casey Junior
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (planning Enforcement) / Interim Relief Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunctions granted against sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants and persons unknown; sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants joined as parties.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Joinder of Parties, Interim Relief, Persons Unknown, Green Belt, Consent Orders
Planning Law Civil Procedure Local Government Law Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control Joinder of Parties Interim Relief Persons Unknown +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES

Claimant

Michael Casey

Defendant

Bridget Casey

Defendant

Simon Doherty

Defendant

Kathleen Doherty

Defendant

Persons Unknown, being those persons causing or permitting works to be undertaken, or waste or other material to be deposited on the land, and/or bringing onto or occupying caravans or mobile homes on the land or intending to do so, other than in accordance with a valid grant of planning permission

Defendant

Tom Doherty

Defendant

Thomas Casey

Defendant

Michael Casey Junior

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (planning Enforcement) / Interim Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunction should be granted against named defendants and persons unknown for breaches of planning control and previous court orders
  2. 2 Whether sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants should be joined to the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether interim relief should be granted against newly joined defendants and persons unknown

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunctions were granted against the sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants and persons unknown because there was compelling evidence of ongoing and recent breaches of planning control and previous court orders, the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the legal requirements for joinder and relief against persons unknown were satisfied.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions granted against sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants and persons unknown; sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants joined as parties.

Orders

  • Interim injunction continued against first to fourth defendants as agreed.
  • Sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants joined to proceedings under CPR 19.2(2).