Central Befordshire Council v Bernard McDonaugh & Ors

For civil contempt based on breach of an injunction, the court must apply the criminal standard to the alleged breach and assess each charge separately. A respondent need not intend to disobey the order or believe the conduct is unlawful; knowledge of the facts making the conduct non-compliant remains relevant. A person prohibited from “allowing” development may breach the order by knowingly standing by while others carry it out. Deliberate blindness or reckless indifference does not provide a defence. The court may draw inferences from circumstantial evidence, assessed cumulatively, but each alleged contempt must still be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Council sought findings of civil contempt against residents and other alleged occupiers of land in Tilsworth. An injunction prohibited development without planning permission and required removal of an additional caravan. The Council alleged that the defendants breached the order by failing to remove the caravan, allowing or carrying out further development, and continuing to live on the land after being told of the injunction. Some defendants admitted part of the allegations; others disputed responsibility, knowledge of the order or effective service. The Council also sought retrospective approval of alternative service. The central issues were whether service and the alleged breaches were proved to the required standard, and whether defendants who did not personally carry out works had allowed them to occur.

1. Service. The court allowed substituted service of documents required by the June 2026 order and retrospective approval of the alternative methods used. It found that the Council had taken reasonable steps to bring the documents to the defendants' attention. Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc v Hussain [2023] 1 W.L.R. 396 supported the court's jurisdiction to make a retrospective order for substituted service.
2. Contempt principles. The proceedings required clear charges, procedural fairness and proof beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant had to prove service and deliberate non-compliance, and the court had to be satisfied of the facts making the conduct a breach. It was unnecessary to prove that a defendant intended to disobey the order or believed the conduct unlawful; state of mind remained relevant to sanction. The judgment also stated that knowledge an order had been made is assessed on the balance of probabilities, while later describing proof of service as required to the criminal standard and knowledge of the order's terms as immaterial to liability. The court assessed circumstantial evidence cumulatively, while requiring each charge to be proved separately.
3. “Allowing” development. The injunction's prohibition covered permitting or letting another undertake development. A person who knew of obvious breaches, or was recklessly indifferent to them, could be found to have allowed them by standing by and taking no steps to prevent them. Self-induced ignorance did not avoid liability. The court applied that approach to the defendants who knew of the works on the new plot but did nothing to prevent them.
4. Development and findings. Applying section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court treated the hardstanding, sheds, brick structure and site preparation as development. It found proven the failure by D1, D3 and D4 to remove the ninth caravan; their allowing of works on the new plot; D4's direction of the installation of one shed; D9, D11 and D12's continued occupation after notice, and their failures to remove the brick structure and shed; allegations 11 and 12 against D15 and D16; and allegations 15 and 16 against D20 and D14. The allegation that D9, D11 and D12 created the new plot or initially brought caravans onto it with knowledge of the injunction was not proved. D10 and D13's admissions to allegation 2A were formally recorded.
5. Further steps. Sentence and consequential matters were adjourned to 4 November 2026.

1. Planning Inspectorate: Bernard McDonaugh's appeal against the enforcement notice was dismissed on 13 August 2024, with the compliance periods extended.
2. High Court: An interim injunction was granted on 29 September 2023. HHJ Tindal continued the injunction on 10 November 2023. HHJ Najib reinstated the proceedings and added defendants 9 to 20 in March 2026.
3. High Court (present decision): The court determined service and contempt liability at first instance. Sentence was adjourned.