Durham County Council v Stephenson & Ors [2025] EWHC 109 (KB) (23 January 2025)
An interim injunction was justified and necessary to prevent further unauthorised development and occupation of the land, given the substantial breach of planning control, the real and imminent risk of further breaches, and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy. The urgency justified a without-notice application,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 109 (KB)
- Parties
- Claimant: Durham County Council; Defendant: Percy Stephenson; Defendant: Danny Patrick Lee; Defendant: Thomas Patrick Ward; Defendant: Persons Unknown (other than the named defendants) occupying or causing or permitting the development or occupation in breach of planning control of the land to the south west of Newholme Estate, Station Town, Wingate, County Durham
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application (without Notice) / Interim Injunction Granted, Pending Further Hearings
- Outcome
- Interim injunction granted
- Legal Topics
- Planning Enforcement, Interim Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Procedural Protections, Equality and Human Rights, Persons Unknown Defendants
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Durham County Council
Claimant
Percy Stephenson
Defendant
Danny Patrick Lee
Defendant
Thomas Patrick Ward
Defendant
Persons Unknown (other than the named defendants) occupying or causing or permitting the development or occupation in breach of planning control of the land to the south west of Newholme Estate, Station Town, Wingate, County Durham
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (without Notice) / Interim Injunction Granted, Pending Further Hearings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain unauthorised development and occupation of land in breach of planning control
- 2 Whether the application should proceed without notice to the defendants
- 3 Whether procedural protections for affected persons are adequate
Ratio Decidendi
An interim injunction was justified and necessary to prevent further unauthorised development and occupation of the land, given the substantial breach of planning control, the real and imminent risk of further breaches, and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy. The urgency justified a without-notice application, provided that extensive procedural protections and transparency measures were implemented. The inclusion of 'persons unknown' as defendants was appropriate due to the compelling need and emergency context, with ongoing obligations to identify individuals.
Court Disposition
Interim injunction granted
Orders
- Prohibition on further development, use, or occupation of the land in breach of planning control
- Order does not require persons already in occupation at 4pm on 23 January 2025 to leave
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment