Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council v John Eastwood & Ors [2018] EWHC 179 (QB) (06 February 2018)

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council v John Eastwood & Ors [2018] EWHC 179 (QB) (06 February 2018)

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the applicant and his family occupied the land after the grant of the injunction, the planning prospects were remote, the period of occupation was short, there was insufficient evidence of particular hardship or impact on the children, and the public interest in upholding court orders and the planning system outweighed the applicant's personal circumstances. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate in the circumstances.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 179
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council; Defendants: John Eastwood & Others; Applicant: MMT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Application to Vary Injunction Under S.187 B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 / Application to Vary High Court Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary the High Court injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Breach of Planning Control, Article 8 ECHR, Best Interests of Children, Proportionality, Enforcement of Court Orders
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Breach of Planning Control Article 8 ECHR Best Interests of Children 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council

Claimant/respondent

John Eastwood & Others

Defendants

MMT

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application to Vary Injunction Under S.187 B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 / Application to Vary High Court Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court injunction restraining residential occupation of land should be varied to permit the applicant and his family to remain pending determination of a planning application
  2. 2 Whether the interference with Article 8 rights and best interests of children is proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's planning prospects justify a variation of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the applicant and his family occupied the land after the grant of the injunction, the planning prospects were remote, the period of occupation was short, there was insufficient evidence of particular hardship or impact on the children, and the public interest in upholding court orders and the planning system outweighed the applicant's personal circumstances. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the High Court injunction refused.

Orders

  • The High Court injunction remains in force and is not varied.