Maidstone BC v Goliea Brazil & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 965 (KB)
St Albans City and District Council v Anthony Hugh Taylerson & Ors
15 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 602 (KB)
High Court
A council tried to stop people from illegally building on protected land. The judge decided there wasn't enough proof the people would break the rules again, so they didn't get a court order to stop them. However, one other person involved did get a court order against them.
Key Facts
- •St Albans City and District Council sought a final injunction against individuals and entities involved in the potential unlawful development of land adjacent to the Redbourn bypass.
- •The land was previously owned by Mr. Taylerson, then sold to Mr. Mason, and finally to Mr. Bygg Ltd, owned by Mr. Myles Green.
- •An interlocutory injunction was in place since 2021.
- •The key issue was whether the defendants' actions constituted an apprehended breach of planning control, specifically regarding tree felling and fence construction.
- •The defendants argued that the 1992 planning permission for a caravan park on the land was still valid.
- •Mr. Green claimed to be living under threat and had changed his name to avoid violence, impacting evidence collection.
- •The council's evidence included allegations of past planning breaches by some defendants in other locations, some of which were later withdrawn.
Legal Principles
The court's power to grant an injunction under section 187B is discretionary and must be exercised judicially, with due regard to the purpose of restraining breaches of planning control.
South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558
In considering a quia timet injunction, a two-stage test is applied: (a) strong probability of breach unless restrained, and (b) inadequacy of damages if the breach occurs.
Vastint Leeds BV v Persons unknown [2018] EWHC 2456 (Ch)
Proportionality requires the injunction to be appropriate and necessary, without imposing an excessive burden on the individual.
South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558
When considering injunctions against 'persons unknown,' there must be a compelling need, and the threat must be real and imminent.
Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47
Outcomes
The application for a final injunction against Mr. Bygg Ltd was rejected.
Insufficient evidence existed to show a strong probability of a future breach of planning control by Mr. Green or the company. The court accepted Mr. Green's explanation for his actions and found that the council's evidence was weak and hadn't been adequately updated since 2021.
The claim against the First Defendant (deceased) was dismissed.
He was no longer connected to the land.
A final injunction was granted against the Third Defendant.
There was a strong probability of a breach, considering his past behavior and lack of communication.
The injunction against 'persons unknown' was refused.
The court did not find a compelling need, given the circumstances, particularly the lack of evidence showing a real and imminent threat of unlawful development by a third party.