Hart District Council v Helen Freeman & Anor

An injunction carrying penal consequences must be construed strictly and by its objective, ordinary meaning in the context known when it was made. A prohibition on residential occupation of an identified structure applies to the structure as a whole, even if it straddles a boundary. Permitted agricultural use does not include use of land as an agricultural dwelling. Business-related activity may therefore amount to residential occupation and breach the injunction. Residential occupation is assessed from the overall picture. Relevant indicators include eating, washing, sleeping, leisure and keeping domestic possessions, although no single indicator is essential. In contempt proceedings, the claimant must prove knowledge of the order, conduct amounting to breach, and knowledge of the facts constituting the breach, to the criminal standard.

Hart District Council sought to commit Helen Freeman and Matthew Silvester for contempt of an injunction made in October 2022 under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The injunction prohibited residential occupation of a twin-unit caravan and other structures on specified land, and prohibited residential occupation of the land.

The defendants operated a pig-farming business and accepted that they frequently used the caravan. They contended that their use was solely for, or ancillary to, the agricultural business, and that the caravan straddled the boundary so the injunction applied only to the part on the specified land. The court had to determine the proper construction of the injunction, the meaning of residential occupation, and whether the alleged periods of use amounted to breaches.

1. Construction of the injunction. Penal injunctions must be clear and strictly construed. A party cannot be committed on an interpretation that is reasonably open to dispute: JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2015] UKSC 64 and ADM International SARL v Grain House International SA [2024] EWCA Civ 33. The relevant words had to be given their objective and ordinary meaning in the relevant context.
2. The reference to residential occupation of the twin-unit caravan “on the Land” identified the particular caravan and did not limit the prohibition to the part of the structure physically situated on plot 1. The order was clear and unambiguous. It prohibited residential occupation of the caravan as a whole, notwithstanding that it straddled the boundary between plot 1 and plot 2.
3. Planning use. Permitted agricultural use did not extend to an agricultural dwelling. Even if the defendants’ activities in the caravan were reasonable or necessary for their agricultural business, paragraph 5 of the injunction did not protect activity which also amounted to residential occupation.
4. Contempt principles. The claimant bore the burden of proving breach to the criminal standard. The necessary ingredients were knowledge of the order, conduct involving breach, and knowledge of the facts making the conduct a breach. Knowledge that the conduct amounted in law to contempt was unnecessary, though relevant to sanction. Each defendant could be liable for the other’s known breach under paragraph 3(d). These principles were drawn from Isbilen v Turk [2024] EWCA Civ 568, referring to Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024.
5. Residential occupation and facts. Residential occupation could not be reduced to an exhaustive list of necessary or sufficient activities. The court assessed the overall picture, including eating, washing, sleeping, leisure, domestic possessions, permanence and continuity. Sleeping was a strong indicator but was not essential, and occupation could be temporary or short-term.
6. The court was sure that both defendants residentially occupied the twin-unit caravan during every pleaded period in January, February and March 2024. The application failed in respect of the earlier periods because the court was not sure that residential occupation had been established during each pleaded period.