The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey & Ors

Interim injunctions may be granted to restrain continuing breaches of planning control where there is a serious issue to be tried, damages are unlikely to be adequate, and the balance of convenience favours preserving the position pending determination.

Injunctions against Persons Unknown require a sufficiently clear description, reasonable steps to draw the proceedings to affected persons’ attention, and compelling justification. The evidence must show a strong probability of a tort or breach of public law causing real harm, with a real and imminent threat. The court must also be satisfied that available statutory or other remedies are inadequate.

The claimant local authority sought interim injunctions concerning caravans, mobile homes, hardstanding and waste on land in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The application was made against four named defendants, three proposed additional defendants, and Persons Unknown.

The proceedings arose against a background of an earlier injunction, undertakings, planning conditions and alleged continuing breaches. The court considered applications to join the additional defendants, to grant interim relief against them, and to grant a newcomer injunction against Persons Unknown.

1. Joinder. The sixth, seventh and eighth defendants were joined under CPR 19.2(2)(a) and (b). The evidence identified them as potentially involved in bringing two further mobile homes onto the land. It was desirable to add them so that all matters in dispute could be resolved in the proceedings. The application could proceed without notice because of urgency and the steps taken to bring the proceedings to the occupiers’ attention.
2. Interim relief against the named defendants. The approach in American Cyanamid required consideration of whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lay. Serious issues arose concerning breaches of planning control, the earlier injunction, undertakings and planning conditions. Damages were unlikely to be adequate. The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo and preventing further breaches pending the return hearing.
3. Persons Unknown. The principles derived from Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers and the Barking and Dagenham cases were applied. The local authority had statutory and equitable jurisdiction to seek a newcomer injunction. The Persons Unknown were described with sufficient clarity, reasonable steps had been taken to draw the proceedings to affected persons’ attention, and procedural fairness was satisfied.
4. The evidence established a compelling justification and a compelling need for relief. There was a strong probability of further breaches, real and imminent harm to the enforcement of planning law, and a history showing that injunctions, undertakings, planning conditions and Temporary Stop Notices had not been lastingly effective. No other remedy was adequate.
5. Interim injunctions were therefore granted against the sixth to eighth defendants and Persons Unknown. The agreed order concerning the first to fourth defendants was also approved.