Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council v John Eastwood & Ors

Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council v John Eastwood & Ors

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the applicant's occupation of the land was not lawful, the period of occupation was short, the planning prospects were remote, there was insufficient evidence of particular hardship or best interests of the children outweighing the public interest, and the need to uphold the authority of court orders was decisive. The balance of factors did not justify a variation.

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 / Ruling on Application to Vary High Court Injunction
Outcome
Application to vary injunction refused
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under S.187 B Town & Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Best Interests of Children (uncrc), Proportionality, Enforcement of Court Orders, Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Under S.187 B Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Best Interests of Children (uncrc) Proportionality Enforcement of Court Orders +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 4 Authorities cited 13 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 / Ruling on Application to Vary High Court Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court injunction restraining occupation of land for residential use should be varied to permit the applicant and his family to remain pending planning determination
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's occupation was in breach of the injunction and whether knowledge of the injunction is relevant
  3. 3 Whether the best interests of the children and Article 8 rights outweigh planning and public interest considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the injunction was refused because the applicant's occupation of the land was not lawful, the period of occupation was short, the planning prospects were remote, there was insufficient evidence of particular hardship or best interests of the children outweighing the public interest, and the need to uphold the authority of court orders was decisive. The balance of factors did not justify a variation.

Court Disposition

Application to vary injunction refused

Orders

  • The High Court injunction remains in force and is not varied to permit the applicant and his family to remain on the land.