Broadland District Council v Trott

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and discharged an injunction granted by the High Court. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs, summarily assessed at £47,000. The supplied extract contains no substantive reasoning: it refers to an approved judgment that is not included. Accordingly, no general legal principle or statutory interpretation can safely be extracted beyond the recorded orders.

Broadland District Council appealed from an order made by Mr John Leighton Williams QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, on 28 July 2010. The order granted an injunction. Neither party appeared or was represented in the Court of Appeal. The supplied extract records the formal disposal of the appeal and the consequential costs order, but does not state the underlying issue or grounds of appeal.

1. Disposition: The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Lord Justice Sullivan stated that the reasons were set out in an approved judgment being handed down.
2. Injunction: The injunction granted by Mr John Leighton Williams QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, on 28 July 2010 was discharged.
3. Costs: The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs in both the Court of Appeal and the High Court. Those costs were summarily assessed at £47,000. The appellant could make written submissions on quantum within seven days of receiving the order, with a copy to the respondent.

The supplied text contains no reasoning beyond these formal orders. No statutory provision, authority, legal test or substantive ratio is therefore identified.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed; the injunction was discharged and costs were summarily assessed at £47,000.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: On 28 July 2010, Mr John Leighton Williams QC, sitting as a deputy judge, granted the injunction.