Report of proceedings at the High Court in the Strand this afternoon to hear the arguments advanced in support/opposition to the continuation of the Injunction obtained by UDC in the terms as granted last week.
UDC were represented by an experienced barrister who has previoulsy dealt with many GAT cases.
UDC were represented by a Senior Enforcement Officer whose affidavit evidence had been used as the basis for the Injunction application. An Officer from Democratic Services was also in attendance.
The Defendants were represented by a solicitor (who was required to obtain leave to appear) – only instructed this morning by the Essex GAT representative who was also present.
There were 5 representatives of the Defendants present in Court.
It was said that there are 14 families interested in the site and their solicitor said that as her clients were illiterate and so numerous, while she was agreeable for the injunction to be continued she needed to be allowed time to gather her evidence in rebuttal for which a period of a minimum of 6-8 weeks was required.
UDC Counsel said that there was no evidence of “occupation” which the Judge noted. Opposing solicitor said her instructions were that “there are people in occupation”. The Judge observed she had seen no evidence of that and said she was willing to continue the injunction on that basis and to allow more time for defendants’ evidence but in the expectation that matters could be argued out at the next hearing without need for a further adjournment. The Judge wanted the matter to come back as soon as possible.
The first Defendant named is the person who applied for retrospective planning permission and it was not clear if he is the owner of the land. It does not appear that the application has been validated yet.
After a brief adjournment to allow Judge to consider the Defendants’ evidence (which apparently raises welfare needs and human rights) which was sent this morning, the Judge has ordered that the Injunction now continues in place until a new hearing date of 18 June (one day allowed).
The defendants are required to serve their evidence no later than 1630 Wednesday 27 May, UDC evidence to be served in reply by 10 June, court bundles filed by 3 days before and written Skeleton arguments to be served 2 days before the hearing date fixed.
The Judge had prepared a judgment in advance which she read out justifying the legal principles for continuing an injunction of this type (which it must be recalled is discretionary and is not “dished out” or maintained automatically) including giving the following reasoning:
* it raised a serious issue to be tried
* prima facie there is change of use (development with hard core and caravans for habitation)
* development continued after stop notice
* it causes real harm in the area
* damages are not an adequate remedy – ie public interest
* no evidence of occupation when injunction was applied for
An Order is being prepared today to this effect and the Judge wanted it served by e mail on the defendants solicitor and on the field itself.