Bolam v First Secretary of State & Ors

The court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction in support of a planning condition, although such relief is rare because enforcement will ordinarily be undertaken by the local planning authority. Relief may be appropriate where a proposed breach directly affects private rights or amenity and the relevant information was not properly communicated. An application to suspend a planning decision under section 288(5) may confer a real, including indirect, benefit even if it does not immediately prevent the relevant conduct. Costs remain discretionary: the general rule that costs follow the event may be adjusted to reflect partial success, partial failure, delay and the practical circumstances in which proceedings were brought.

The claimant sought the costs of an urgent injunction application and an application under section 288(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The applications concerned the proposed letting of a converted barn subject to a planning condition restricting occupation and requiring highway-safety measures.

The injunction could not be granted because the tenancy had already commenced and third-party rights would have been affected. The related planning challenge succeeded in quashing the Inspector’s decision, although other grounds failed. The issue was the appropriate costs order in light of the applications’ limited and partial success, the parties’ communication failures, and the urgency of the proceedings.

1. Costs order. The claimant was awarded three-quarters of the costs incurred in seeking the injunction and the order under section 288(5), including the costs of the present hearing. The costs were to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
2. The court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction in support of a planning condition. Although such injunctions were rarely granted because planning enforcement was normally a matter for the local planning authority, this was arguably an appropriate case. The proposed letting directly affected the claimant’s land, private rights and amenity, and relevant information had not been properly communicated.
3. The application under section 288(5) was not devoid of benefit. Even though it had not produced an immediate practical effect, it enabled the council to take enforcement action and might, had the law been complied with, have brought the tenancy to an end.
4. The proceedings were justified despite the claimant’s delay in notifying the other parties of his concerns. The council had taken almost three weeks to respond to the claimant’s letter, and the claimant acted promptly once the true position became apparent. However, the claimant had not obtained the full injunction sought and could have taken some earlier steps. The general rule that costs follow the event therefore required adjustment.

The judgment concerned costs following earlier proceedings. Sullivan J quashed the Inspector’s planning decision in the claimant’s section 288 appeal. The present court determined the costs of the urgent injunction and section 288(5) applications.