Waverley Borough Council v Anthony Martin Gray & Ors

The claimant sought final prohibitory and mandatory injunctions under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to restrain and require removal of unauthorised caravan occupation and operational development on land at Stovald's Hill. The court applied the established planning-enforcement principles from South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter, the American Cyanamid interim relief approach, and the requirement to consider Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR rights together with the Equality Act 2010 obligations.

The court determined that the question whether planning appeals by two defendants (D13 and D14) must be exhausted before a mandatory final injunction is a matter for trial and accordingly continued the undertakings given by those defendants under the existing interim order. The remaining application by D7 for suspension or variation of the interim injunction so that his family might remain on the land was refused. The judge found a serious issue to be tried, a strong prima facie case for the claimant and that the balance of convenience, public interest and risk of condoning contempt of orders favoured continuing the interim injunctions without variation.

The claimant council applied for final prohibitory and mandatory injunctions under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to restrain the change of use of land to stationing of caravans for human habitation and associated operational development. Interim injunctive relief had been in place since 2021 and was continued by orders of deputy High Court judges. Three defendants (D7, D13 and D14) applied to suspend or vary those interim injunctive orders. D13 and D14 sought protection pending the outcome of planning appeals and relied on personal circumstances; D7 sought suspension to permit his family to continue to occupy a caravan pitch.

The court framed two issues: (1) whether the planning appeals by D13 and D14 must be exhausted before the grant of any mandatory final injunction, and (2) what interim form of injunction was appropriate in relation to D7, D13 and D14. Applying the CPR overriding objective and case-management powers, the judge concluded Issue 1 should be dealt with at the forthcoming trial and therefore the undertakings given by D13 and D14 remained in full force. On Issue 2 the court considered the factual evidence, including inconsistent witness statements from D7 about his children's care and medical material, the planning history, and the public interest in upholding planning control. The court applied the Porter principles, the American Cyanamid approach for interim relief, and authorities warning against suspending injunctions where that would condone breach of court orders (Mid-Bedfordshire DC v Brown).

Because of evidential opacity about D7's family circumstances and the strong public interest in maintaining effective planning enforcement, the judge held that continuing the existing interim injunctions without variation caused the least irremediable prejudice and was proportionate. D7's application to suspend the injunction was dismissed, D13 and D14's undertakings continued pending trial, and directions were given for production of medical records and a later full trial to resolve the substantive claim.

This was a first instance application concerning interim relief. The court dismissed the application by the Seventh Defendant (D7) to suspend or vary the interim injunctions and ordered that the interim injunction dated 11 November 2022 continue in full against D7 without variation. As to D13 and D14, the judge held that the question whether their planning appeals must be exhausted before any mandatory final injunction is a matter for trial; their undertakings given on 11 November 2022 remain in full force. The rationale was that there is a serious issue to be tried, a strong prima facie case for the claimant, evidential uncertainty about D7's personal circumstances, and that the balance of convenience and public interest favoured continuing the interim relief rather than suspending it.