Surrey Heath Borough Council v Robb & Ors

An interim injunction preventing unauthorised residential occupation of land may be granted where there is a sufficiently strong prima facie case, rather than merely an arguable case, particularly where the order has an eviction-like effect.

The court must assess the balance of convenience and proportionality, including the public interest in planning control, environmental and heritage protection, the unlawfulness and duration of the occupation, the availability of alternative accommodation, the parties’ resources, and the interests of children. A full evidential and cross-examined assessment is ordinarily appropriate at trial, not at an interim injunction hearing. A speedy trial may protect the defendants’ procedural and human-rights interests while preserving interim relief.

The claimant local authority sought continuation of injunctions under section 187B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The injunctions restrained unauthorised development and the defendants’ residential occupation of land at Chobham, Surrey, where caravans had been placed and the land used as a caravan site.

A without-notice injunction had been granted by Murray J on 12 June 2020 and continued on notice on 22 June 2020. The defendants sought an adjournment, remote-hearing arrangements, cross-examination, and discharge or modification of the occupation restriction. The central issues were whether an interim injunction should continue pending a speedy trial, whether cross-examination was required at the interim stage, and how the defendants’ Article 6 and Article 8 rights, children’s interests and planning considerations affected the balance of convenience.

1. Interim relief. The injunctions were continued until trial. The defendants were restrained from further development and from using the land as a residential gypsy caravan site or residing there. The court held that damages were inadequate for the local authority, which was protecting the environment, the public interest and neighbouring property interests.
2. Threshold and balance. The case satisfied the American Cyanamid serious-issue requirement. Because the occupation injunction had an eviction-like effect, the appropriate threshold was a sufficiently strong prima facie case, higher than merely arguable. The court found strong interim factors in favour of the claimant, including green-belt and heritage concerns, unauthorised development and occupation, the defendants’ knowledge of planning difficulties, the short period of occupation, and the apparent availability of alternative accommodation or resources.
3. Evidence and cross-examination. Cross-examination was rare at an interim injunction hearing, especially where it was general rather than confined to a discrete issue. If required, it would also require cross-examination of the defendants and advance disclosure. Those matters were suitable for the speedy trial fixed for 24 August 2020. Interim findings were expressly confined to the period before trial and were not to influence the final determination.
4. Human rights and children. The court considered Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the ECHR, section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The speedy trial protected procedural fairness. The interference with private and family life was proportionate because the occupation was unauthorised, brief, environmentally harmful, and unlikely to leave the defendants without accommodation. No specific evidence showed that the children’s welfare would be endangered.
5. Adjournment and appeal. The adjournment application was refused because the defendants had adequate opportunity to prepare for the interim hearing and their representatives attended remotely. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for it.

The judgment records that Murray J granted a without-notice injunction on 12 June 2020. The injunction was continued on notice on 22 June 2020, with further directions given on 24 June 2020. This judgment continued the injunction pending a speedy trial and refused permission to appeal.