Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey

Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey

A final injunction against persons unknown is justified due to persistent and significant breaches of planning control, failed enforcement measures, and compelling need for enforcement. The injunction is territorially limited to the land and temporally limited to ten years for newcomers, with procedural protections for affected persons.

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 Bernadette Katrina 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: Thomas Jude Doherty; Defendant: Thomas Casey; Defendant: Michael Casey Junior
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Final injunction granted against persons unknown for ten years; consent order approved for named Defendants; sealed consent order revoked and to be remade.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Unauthorised Development, Breach of Planning Control, Persons Unknown, Procedural Protections
Planning Law Local Government Law Environmental Law Injunctions Unauthorised Development Breach of Planning Control Persons Unknown Procedural Protections

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 Bernadette Katrina 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

Thomas Jude Doherty

Defendant

Thomas Casey

Defendant

Michael Casey Junior

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final injunction should be granted against persons unknown to restrain unauthorised development and breaches of planning control
  2. 2 Whether the consent order between the Claimant and named Defendants should be approved
  3. 3 Appropriate territorial and temporal limits for an injunction against newcomers

Ratio Decidendi

A final injunction against persons unknown is justified due to persistent and significant breaches of planning control, failed enforcement measures, and compelling need for enforcement. The injunction is territorially limited to the land and temporally limited to ten years for newcomers, with procedural protections for affected persons.

Court Disposition

Final injunction granted against persons unknown for ten years; consent order approved for named Defendants; sealed consent order revoked and to be remade.

Orders

  • Named Defendants and persons unknown prohibited from carrying out development on The Tree Birches as depicted in attached plans.
  • Prohibition on bringing additional caravans onto the land other than the four already sited.