Lochailort Investments Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Mendip District Council

Interim relief in judicial review proceedings concerning a neighbourhood plan is governed by the American Cyanamid principles, modified for the public-law context. The claimant must show a real prospect of succeeding at the substantive hearing. The court must then assess the balance of convenience, giving proper weight to the public interest in allowing a public authority to pursue its policy. Where the legality of proceeding to a referendum is reasonably challenged, the cost, disruption and uncertainty of holding the referendum may favour postponement. The statutory availability of a challenge before the referendum does not prevent the authority from continuing, but it does not remove the court’s power to grant interim relief. Preservation of the existing position before the referendum may also support an injunction.

The claimant sought an interim injunction before issuing a proposed judicial review claim. The claim challenged Mendip District Council’s decision to accept the examiner’s conclusions on the Norton St Philip Neighbourhood Plan and proceed to a referendum scheduled for 17 October 2019.

The proposed grounds concerned the treatment of Local Green Space designations under national planning policy. The claimant alleged that the Council had failed to consider whether the designations were capable of enduring beyond the plan period, consistent with sustainable development, and properly justified as meeting the applicable policy test.

The Council conceded that there was a serious question to be tried but opposed interim relief. The central issue was whether the balance of convenience favoured postponing the referendum pending determination of the judicial review claim.

1. Interim relief granted. The claimant had a real prospect of succeeding at the substantive hearing. The Council had not answered the first two proposed grounds at that stage, and the third ground provided additional support for the merits threshold.
2. The governing principles were those in American Cyanamid Company v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, modified as appropriate for public-law proceedings. The court considered both the merits threshold and the balance of convenience. In judicial review, the balance of convenience is generally the more important question because damages will ordinarily not provide an adequate remedy and the wider public interest must be considered.
3. The public interest included permitting a public authority to continue to act in accordance with what it considered to be the public interest. However, the weight of that interest depended on the legal and factual context. The Council had provided no evidence of pending planning applications or other prejudice caused by postponement.
4. Section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 created distinct opportunities to challenge different stages of the neighbourhood-plan process. Following R (Oyston Estates Ltd) v Fylde Borough Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1152, the scheme promoted prompt challenges and legal certainty, but did not prevent the authority from continuing the process while proceedings were pending. It remained open to a claimant to seek interim relief restraining further steps.
5. R (Gladman Developments Ltd) v Aylesbury District Council [2014] EWHC 4323 (Admin) did not justify refusing relief. That application depended on evidence of substantial pending planning applications and the risk that an injunction would affect the weight given to the neighbourhood plan. No comparable circumstances had been shown here.
6. Proceeding with the referendum would create cost, disruption and uncertainty while the legality of doing so was under challenge. If the referendum were later quashed, the claimant would face the additional burden of challenging the result, and voters could be confused despite there being no irregularity in the referendum itself. The status quo was the position before the referendum, so its preservation also favoured relief. The injunction was granted.