Canterbury City Council v Hill

An appellate court will not disturb a first-instance finding of fact that was properly open to the judge on the evidence. Where an injunction remains in force and has not been complied with, a later planning application or dispute about its fee does not, by itself, justify setting aside a committal order. The obligation remains to comply with the order, particularly where the later application has been addressed on the evidence and does not affect that obligation.

Canterbury City Council obtained an injunction requiring Hill to remove buildings and structures and discontinue specified uses of land. After partial compliance, the County Court found continuing breaches concerning internal fencing and pig sheds and made a committal order, suspended on condition of compliance.

Hill later applied to set aside the committal order, relying on evidence that the pig sheds were mobile and contending that a planning application should have been considered without a fee. The judge dismissed that application but stayed the committal order pending appeal. The central issues were whether the finding about mobility could be disturbed and whether the planning application affected the continuing obligation to comply.

Disposition

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The committal order therefore remained in force, subject to its suspension on the stated condition.

1. Factual finding. The judge’s finding that the pig sheds were not mobile was properly open to him on the evidence. It was therefore a finding that the appellate court would not disturb.
2. Planning application. The complaint about the fee and the alleged failure to deal with the application did not justify setting aside the order. The application was a prior notification for agricultural development. The Council’s evidence addressed the absence of relevant permitted development rights, the earlier requirement to remove the fences, and the dismissal of an appeal against the enforcement notice.
3. Continuing breach. The April 2007 injunction remained in force and had not been complied with more than a year later. The planning application, having been dealt with on the evidence, did not affect the continuing obligation to comply with the order.
4. Result. The judge was entitled to refuse to set aside the committal order. Appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In Canterbury City Council v Hill, [2008] EWCA Civ 620, the appeal against the County Court’s refusal to set aside the committal order was dismissed.
2. Canterbury County Court: On 25 April 2007, an injunction was granted requiring removal of specified buildings and structures and discontinuance of specified uses. On 11 January 2008, a committal order was made for continuing breaches, suspended on condition of compliance. On 29 February 2008, the application to set aside that order was dismissed, with the committal order stayed pending appeal.