Maldon District Council v Hammond

In contempt proceedings for breach of a planning injunction, the appellate court may review the current position but should not extend a suspended committal order where the lower court made no material error and imposed an appropriate period for compliance. Serious and persistent disobedience engages the public interest in maintaining respect for court orders. A person who wishes to challenge an injunction, or seek an extension of its suspension, should apply promptly to the High Court and, if necessary, appeal. The court should assess hardship, including accommodation needs, but difficulty in relocating a mobile home does not by itself justify interference where alternative accommodation is available and sufficient time for compliance has been allowed.

Maldon District Council obtained an injunction requiring Michael Roy Hammond to remove mobile homes and vehicles from land and to cease using it for human habitation, subject to the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The injunction followed earlier planning and enforcement proceedings and an unsuccessful appeal on the construction of section 173(11) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Hammond remained in breach. Curtis J found wilful and contumacious disobedience and ordered committal for two months, with execution suspended for six months subject to complete compliance. On appeal, Hammond sought a longer suspension, relying on subsequent events and the absence of a site for his mobile home. The central issues were whether Curtis J had erred and whether the Court of Appeal should extend the suspension.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal found no error in Curtis J’s assessment of the breaches, the appellant’s evidence, or the hardship arising from the injunction. The six-month suspension was an appropriate period in which to comply.
2. Serious and persistent breach of an injunction must be considered against the public interest in upholding obedience to court orders. The principles identified in Mid Bedfordshire District Council v Brown [2005] 1 WLR 1460 applied. The court must not allow a suspension to appear to condone disobedience or undermine the authority of the court and the rule of law.
3. The appellant’s proper remedy, if he wished to challenge or vary the injunction or obtain a further suspension, was prompt application to the High Court, followed if necessary by an appeal. That course applied even though the committal order did not expressly confer liberty to apply.
4. On the evidence, the appellant’s difficulty was principally his determination to remain on the land in his mobile home. The council undertook to provide immediate temporary accommodation when he left and had placed him at the top of its waiting list for permanent accommodation. The court therefore saw no substantive or procedural basis for extending the suspension.
5. The court did not decide any asserted statutory entitlement to a site for the mobile home or any relief based on gypsy status, since those matters had not been argued.

Order: appeal dismissed; public funding assessment of the appellant’s costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the order of Curtis J dated 31 January 2005 dismissed. The Court of Appeal declined to extend the six-month suspension of the two-month committal order.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Curtis J found the appellant in contempt for wilful and contumacious breaches of the injunction and ordered committal for two months, suspended for six months on condition of complete compliance.
• Earlier proceedings: an injunction had been granted by Buckley J, and an earlier appeal concerning construction of section 173(11) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 had been dismissed.