Durham County Council v Percy Stephenson & Ors

Durham County Council v Percy Stephenson & Ors

The interim injunction was justified and necessary to prevent imminent and ongoing unauthorised development and occupation of land, with adequate procedural protections for affected persons, and the application without notice was proportionate given the risk of incentivising accelerated occupation.

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 / Interim Order, Without Notice, Urgent Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Planning Injunctions, Unauthorised Development, Procedural Protections, Persons Unknown, Public Sector Equality Duty
Planning Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Planning Injunctions Unauthorised Development Procedural Protections Persons Unknown Public Sector Equality Duty

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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

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 / Interim Order, Without Notice, Urgent Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain unauthorised development and occupation of land in breach of planning control
  2. 2 Whether the application should proceed without notice
  3. 3 Whether procedural protections for affected persons are adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction was justified and necessary to prevent imminent and ongoing unauthorised development and occupation of land, with adequate procedural protections for affected persons, and the application without notice was proportionate given the risk of incentivising accelerated occupation.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Interim injunction prohibiting further development, occupation, and entry onto the land in breach of planning control
  • Procedural protections including remote-access hearings, return date, mention hearing, and liberty to apply