Durham County Council v Percy Stephenson & Ors

A planning injunction may be granted on an interim basis where there is a substantial breach of planning control, a real and imminent risk of continuation, and damages would be inadequate. The court must itself assess necessity, appropriateness and proportionality.

A without-notice application may be justified where advance notice would encourage the conduct sought to be restrained, provided effective procedural safeguards are secured. An order against persons unknown must be clear, precise, tailored and supported by a compelling need.

Durham County Council applied without notice for an interim injunction under Town & Country Planning Act 1990 section 187B and Senior Courts Act 1981 section 37(1). The application concerned alleged large-scale unauthorised development and intended occupation of land near Wingate, County Durham.

The central issues were whether interim relief was necessary and proportionate, whether the application should proceed without notice, whether persons unknown could properly be included, and whether a cross-undertaking in damages was required.

1. Interim injunction. The order was justified under Town & Country Planning Act 1990 section 187B and Senior Courts Act 1981 section 37(1). The court exercised an original jurisdiction and had to be satisfied as primary decision-maker. There was a serious basis for finding a substantial breach of planning control and a real and imminent risk of further breach unless restrained. Damages would not be an adequate remedy. The public interest in proper planning and enforcement was relevant, as were proportionality, human rights, equality duties and the best interests of children.
2. Without notice. The case was urgent, but not so extremely urgent that informal notice was impossible. The absence of notice was justified because advance warning could incentivise further occupation before service and frustrate the injunction’s purpose. That conclusion depended materially on the procedural safeguards in the order.
3. Safeguards. The order provided access to the materials, an urgent mention hearing, a return date, remote participation, monitored email contact and generous liberty to apply. It preserved the position of persons already occupying the land at service and did not require existing plant or machinery to be removed.
4. Cross-undertaking. In this public-interest context, involving an interim order directed to a specific site, the absence of a cross-undertaking in damages did not make the order unjustified or inappropriate.
5. Persons unknown. Inclusion of persons unknown was proper because there was a real and imminent risk, a compelling need and an emergency need to hold the ring. The order was clear, precise and properly tailored, with procedural protections and an obligation on the local authority to continue identifying persons and consider further service or joinder.
6. Disposition. The injunction order was made. The court directed urgent remote mention and return hearings.