East Hertfordshire District Council v Doherty & Ors [2019] EWHC 2292 (QB) (05 September 2019)

East Hertfordshire District Council v Doherty & Ors [2019] EWHC 2292 (QB) (05 September 2019)

The injunction was necessary and proportionate at the time it was granted and remains so. The Defendants knowingly and deliberately breached planning control and the injunction, and the evidence of hardship or best interests of children is insufficiently substantiated to outweigh the public interest in enforcement. The council did not abuse procedure or fail in its duties. The application to vary or discharge the injunction is refused.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2292 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: East Hertfordshire District Council; Defendant: Thomas Doherty and 18 Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Committal and Application to Vary/discharge Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment on Variation/discharge of Injunction and Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Application to vary or discharge injunction refused; committal for contempt admitted and sentencing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S.187 B, Committal for Contempt of Court, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Best Interests of Children, Proportionality in Enforcement, Public Sector Equality Duty, Traveller/gypsy Site Policy
Planning Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S.187 B Committal for Contempt of Court Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Best Interests of Children Proportionality in Enforcement +2 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East Hertfordshire District Council

Claimant

Thomas Doherty and 18 Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal and Application to Vary/discharge Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment on Variation/discharge of Injunction and Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction obtained under s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be varied or discharged to allow continued occupation pending planning appeal
  2. 2 Whether the committal for contempt is established by admitted breaches
  3. 3 Whether the council complied with its public sector equality and human rights duties in seeking and enforcing the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was necessary and proportionate at the time it was granted and remains so. The Defendants knowingly and deliberately breached planning control and the injunction, and the evidence of hardship or best interests of children is insufficiently substantiated to outweigh the public interest in enforcement. The council did not abuse procedure or fail in its duties. The application to vary or discharge the injunction is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to vary or discharge injunction refused; committal for contempt admitted and sentencing adjourned.

Orders

  • Injunction remains in force as originally granted.
  • Sentencing for contempt to be dealt with at a later date.