South Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell & Ors

Where an injunction under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 187B is made against persons unknown, a person falling within its description becomes bound by doing the prohibited act. Whether that person has breached the order, with the requisite knowledge, is not a discretionary proportionality exercise.

The South Bucks District Council v Porter principles apply when the court grants an injunction against a named person and on a later application to vary or set aside an injunction. An affected person must seek that relief before acting in breach. Personal circumstances may also be relevant to variation and sentence, but cannot excuse a knowing past contempt.

Two gypsy caravan occupiers appealed from county court committal decisions for breach of planning injunctions made under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 187B. The injunctions had been addressed to owners of specified plots and to persons unknown respectively. Each appellant entered the relevant land after the injunction had been made, knew of it, and stationed or occupied caravans in breach of it.

They contended that the court had to undertake the proportionality assessment required by South Bucks District Council v Porter [2003] UKHL 26 before deciding that they were bound by the injunction and in contempt. The central issue was whether that assessment applied to a later occupier of land subject to an injunction against persons unknown.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The county court judges correctly held that each appellant was bound by the relevant injunction, had breached it, and was in contempt after acquiring knowledge of it.

2. Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 permits injunctions against persons unknown. Such relief may be necessary where the persons concerned cannot be identified, but the absence of personal information means that the full personal-circumstances assessment cannot be undertaken when the order is made. Courts should therefore make such orders only where identification is not possible.

3. South Bucks District Council v Porter [2003] UKHL 26 did not directly govern these cases. In that case the respondents occupied the land when the injunctions were granted. Here, each appellant entered the land only afterwards. Its proportionality principles apply to an original application against named defendants and to a proper later application to vary or discharge an injunction, not to the factual question whether a person who has acted with knowledge has breached an existing order.

4. A person addressed by an order against persons unknown becomes a defendant when acting so as to fall within its description. No later judicial act of joinder or balancing exercise is required to make that person bound. The proper course is to apply promptly to vary or set aside the order, rather than to commit a knowing breach.

5. On an application for future variation, the court must apply the South Bucks District Council v Porter principles and, where relevant, the approach in Mid Bedfordshire District Council v Brown [2004] EWCA Civ 1709. A knowing breach remains a past contempt even if the injunction is later varied or set aside. Personal circumstances are relevant to sentence and may be relevant to future relief, but do not negate the contempt.

6. The appeal of Kathleen Gammell was dismissed. Winnie Maughan's appeal was also dismissed, but her committal order was suspended for two months to permit removal of the caravans and avoid activation of the custodial sentence. An inquiry into the councils' costs from public funds was granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed both appeals in [2005] EWCA Civ 1429.
• Cambridge County Court: On 11 July 2005, held Kathleen Gammell bound by the injunction, in breach, and in contempt; sentence was adjourned.
• Bromley County Court: On 11 March 2005, joined Winnie Maughan to the committal proceedings, found her in contempt, and imposed a suspended custodial sentence conditional on removal of caravans.