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 Applicant and his family occupied the land after the grant of the High Court Injunction, and their prospects of success in obtaining planning permission are remote. The interference with Article 8 rights is limited given the short period of occupation and absence of evidence of particular hardship to children. The overarching public interest in upholding court orders outweighs the Applicant's personal circumstances. It is not appropriate to vary the injunction; the interests of the Applicant and his family will be considered in the planning process.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 179 (QB)
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 / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Determination of Application to Vary Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary High Court Injunction refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under S.187 B Town & Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR, Best Interests of Children, Proportionality, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision, Enforcement of Court Orders
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Under S.187 B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR Best Interests of Children Proportionality Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision +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 / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Determination of Application to Vary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court Injunction should be varied to permit Applicant's continued occupation of plot 4 pending determination of planning application
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant properly considered the best interests of children and personal circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant's prospects of success in planning application justify variation

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant and his family occupied the land after the grant of the High Court Injunction, and their prospects of success in obtaining planning permission are remote. The interference with Article 8 rights is limited given the short period of occupation and absence of evidence of particular hardship to children. The overarching public interest in upholding court orders outweighs the Applicant's personal circumstances. It is not appropriate to vary the injunction; the interests of the Applicant and his family will be considered in the planning process.

Court Disposition

Application to vary High Court Injunction refused

Orders

  • High Court Injunction remains in force; Applicant and family not permitted to continue occupation of plot 4 pending planning determination