Reigate and Banstead Borough Council v Brown and Others ; Mole Valley District Council v Smith and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1992 |
| Date | 27 February 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Donaldson of Lymington, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Balcombe and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith
Local authority - caravan sites - duty to accommodate Gypsies - effect on injunction
The failure of a county council to discharge its duty under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide adequate accommodation for Gypsies residing in or resorting to its area was not a ground for refusing a district council within that county an injunction to secure compliance with an enforcement notice requiring specific Gypsies to discontinue the use of a caravan site which they owned in the green belt.
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing appeals by (i) the defendants, Mr Benjamin Brown, Mr Albert Eastwood and Mr Caleb Jones, from Sir Michael Ogden, QC, who, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division on May 21, 1991, had granted Reigate and Banstead Borough Council an injunction restraining the defendants from using their land "Crosswinds", Collendean Lane, Horsehills, Norwood Hill, Surrey to station caravans and/or mobile homes; and (ii) by the defendants, Mr Henry Smith, Mr Albert Smith and Mr William Smith, from Mr Justice Hoffmann who on June 21, 1991 had granted Mole Valley District Council a similar injunction against them in respect of their land "The Evergreens", Reigate Road, Betchworth, Surrey.
Mr David Friedman, QC and Mr Alan Masters for defendants in the first action; Mr Patrick Clarkson, QC and Mr Marc Willers for the defendants in the second action; Mr Gerard Ryan, QC and Mr Timothy Comyn for the plaintiff councils.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that it was common ground that the defendants were Gypsies for the purposes of the 1968 Act. In each case the council had issued enforcement notices requiring the removal of caravans and mobile homes which the defendants had stationed on their own land in the Green Belt. The defendants had failed to comply with the notices, despite having been convicted and fined for breaches and the councils had brought proceedings for injunctions in support of the criminal law.
The defendants had a legitimate grievance, in that Surrey County Council was in breach of its duty under section 6 of the 1968 Act to provide adequate accommodation for Gypsies generally but neither the county council nor the plaintiff councils owed any duty to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Bucks District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and Others; Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry and another; Hertsmere Borough Council v Harty and another
...before the Human Rights Act was enacted. This approach is to be found in three decisions of the Court of Appeal. I start with Mole Valley District Council v Smith [1992] 3 PLR 22 which concerned the grant of injunctions against gipsies under s.222 and addressed the respective powers and dut......
-
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Michalak
...(and their families) whom they were seeking to remove from the particular land they were occupying ( Mole Valley DC v Smith, Reigate and Banstead BC v Brown [1992] 2 PLR 22, 31). It is hardly surprising in those circumstances that a court of supervisory jurisdiction is now required to take ......
-
Lee Qualter v Crown Court at Preston
...these proceedings in the way which the section required, and impliedly gave the answer “no” to that question. In Mole Valley DC v Smith [1992] 24 HLR 442 Lord Donaldson MR said at p 450: “… It is not for the courts in these proceedings to review the decision of the respondent councils under......
-
Thurrock Council v Martin Stokes
...a commensurate remedy in the particular case” and then considered the Court of Appeal decisions in Mole Valley District Council v Smith (1992) 90 LGR 557 and Hambleton District Council v Bird [1995] 3 PLR 8. He held: [57] These decisions predate the coming into operation of the Human Rights......