The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey & Ors

The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey & Ors

Interim injunctions were granted against the named defendants and persons unknown because there was compelling evidence of ongoing and imminent breaches of planning control, previous court orders had not been effective, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured maintaining the status quo. The sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants were properly joined due to evidence of their involvement in recent breaches.

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; Defendant: Tom Doherty; Defendant: Thomas Casey; Defendant: Michael Casey Junior
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (planning Enforcement) / Interim Relief Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunctions granted; sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants joined to proceedings.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Enforcement of Planning Control, Joinder of Parties, Interim Relief, Persons Unknown
Planning Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Enforcement of Planning Control Joinder of Parties Interim Relief Persons Unknown

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 8 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

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 court orders
  2. 2 Whether sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants should be joined to the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunctions were granted against the named defendants and persons unknown because there was compelling evidence of ongoing and imminent breaches of planning control, previous court orders had not been effective, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured maintaining the status quo. The sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants were properly joined due to evidence of their involvement in recent breaches.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions granted; sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants joined to proceedings.

Orders

  • Interim injunction continued against first to fourth defendants as agreed.
  • Sixth, seventh, and eighth defendants joined as parties and interim injunction granted against them.