Westminster City Council v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Limited & Anor

Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success, or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. A party seeking to preserve an interim injunction after judgment, pending permission to appeal or an appeal, must make the appropriate formal application supported by evidence. The court may require a cross-undertaking in damages where continuation of the injunction operates as a stay pending appeal. Where the successful party would otherwise face continuing uncertainty and the proposed extension would make no appreciable difference to the appellant’s position, the time for filing an appellant’s notice may be abridged.

The claimant local authority’s substantive claim concerning planning obligations in a section 106 agreement had been dismissed in a judgment handed down on 22 July 2025. An interim injunction granted on 30 October 2024 remained in force temporarily while consequential matters were determined. The claimant sought continuation of the injunction and a period extending to 19 August 2025 to decide whether to appeal. The defendants opposed continuation and sought abridgment of the appeal period. The issues were whether permission to appeal should be granted, whether the injunction should continue, and when any appellant’s notice should be filed.

1. Permission to appeal. The claimant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of persuading the Court of Appeal that the construction and effect of subclause 10.1.1 of the section 106 agreement were wrong. There was no alleged serious procedural irregularity and no other compelling reason for an appeal to be heard. Permission to appeal was therefore refused, subject to the claimant’s right to renew the application in the Court of Appeal.

2. Continuation of the injunction. The claimant accepted that any application to continue the injunction pending an appeal on the Novartis basis should be made by formal application notice, supported by evidence, and determined at a hearing. That issue could not properly be resolved within the consequential-order process. The temporary holding direction had served its purpose, and the interim injunction was discharged.

3. Time for appeal. The successful defendants were entitled to finality and certainty. The claimant already had draft grounds and detailed submissions, and there was no reason why it could not file its appellant’s notice promptly. The time for filing at the Court of Appeal was accordingly abridged to 12 August 2025, 21 days after the substantive judgment.

4. The parties’ agreement that the claimant should pay the defendants’ substantive costs, with £250,000 plus VAT paid on account within 28 days, was recorded, subject to the agreed treatment of the interim-injunction costs.

The judgment records that the substantive claim had been dismissed by the same court on 22 July 2025. The present judgment determined consequential matters following that decision. The claimant could renew its application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.