Dacorum Borough Council v Persons Unknown

For an interim injunction restraining actual or apprehended breaches of planning control, the court applies the American Cyanamid approach, while taking account of the statutory and equitable context. It must not determine the planning merits or conduct a mini-trial, but must review the competing evidence sufficiently to assess the injunction. Where alleged occupiers moved onto land after the injunction, their Article 8 interests and hardship remain relevant, although that timing may substantially reduce the weight given to them. A Porter assessment remains relevant where people are residing on the land. The court may continue an injunction against Persons Unknown where the prohibited conduct and territorial scope are clearly defined, reasonable enquiries have been made, disclosure is full and frank, and no practical alternative is adequate. Proportionality remains essential.

The claimant local planning authority obtained a without-notice injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 concerning alleged unauthorised development of Green Belt land for a gypsy and traveller caravan site. The injunction restrained further development, the bringing or stationing of caravans, and residential occupation.

The claimant applied to continue the injunction and add named intended defendants. The intended defendants applied to discharge or vary it, relying on alleged occupation before the injunction, Article 8 rights, welfare considerations, and the prospects of their planning application. The court considered whether there had been material non-disclosure, whether the injunction should continue, and whether it remained permissible against Persons Unknown.

1. Applications granted and refused. The intended defendants were added as parties. Their application to discharge or vary the injunction was refused. The interim injunction was continued pending final hearing, with a speedy trial contemplated.
2. Section 187B confers a broad discretion. The court applied the American Cyanamid questions: whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages were an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lay. It was not entitled to determine the planning merits independently. The prospects of the planning application and the alleged grey-belt status were therefore not matters for determination on the injunction application.
3. At a contested return hearing the court does not conduct a mini-trial or decide disputed facts without cross-examination. Some review of the competing evidence is nevertheless necessary. The unauthorised development and its continuation established a serious issue, and damage to the public interest in planning control could not adequately be compensated by damages.
4. Whether the intended defendants occupied the land when the injunction was made was critical. Their evidence of occupation before the order was rejected in light of the photographs, discrepancies with the planning material, and their failure to approach the court with clean hands. A Porter assessment remained relevant to anyone residing on the land, but the post-injunction timing materially reduced the weight of their Article 8 and hardship claims. The court also took account of the fact that the land was unsuitable for habitation without further breaches.
5. The injunction was proportionate and necessary. The intended defendants had developed the land in flagrant breach of the order, and the considerations in Bromley arose in materially different circumstances and did not support variation.
6. The requirements for an injunction against Persons Unknown were satisfied. The claimant had complied with its disclosure duty and made reasonable enquiries. The prohibited conduct was defined in clear, everyday terms, within precise territorial limits, and no further than necessary. The ignored Temporary Stop Notice showed that there was no practical alternative.
7. Dr Cannon’s reports were disregarded because there was no direction or permission for expert evidence and she was not shown to be an independent expert.

The judgment records that Cheema-Grubb J granted the without-notice injunction on 5 April 2026. HHJ Saddique, sitting as a High Court judge, adjourned the matter to the hearing before this court on 7 May 2026. This court continued the injunction and made the further orders described above.