A council’s threat of legal costs against landowners if they did not undertake to stop developing their land was not ‘coercive’, a High Court judge has ruled.
Ashford Borough Council in Kent had issued a claim against Mark Homewood and Teresa Reidy-Wilde to prevent alleged breaches of planning control on their land. In 2021 the council obtained an interim injunction from Mr Justice Lane prohibiting the defendants from using, or carrying out works to, the land in breach of planning control.
In response to being served with the interim injunction, the defendants agreed a compromise under which they gave undertakings - including not to live in a caravan on the land or bring any further caravans on to it - on the basis the council’s claim would be dismissed and there would be no order as to costs.
But the defendants applied to be released from their undertakings before Andrew Kinnier KC in the High Court. In judgment, Kinnier said a ‘consistent theme’ of their counsel’s submissions was that the undertakings were provided in response to the threat of costs should the matter proceed to a final hearing.
The judge said they argued ‘that the threat of continuing proceedings and the associated costs had effectively “coerced” the defendants into providing the undertakings’.
‘I reject that submission’, Kinnier said. ‘Once proceedings are issued, costs are always a relevant and legitimate factor in the parties’ decision-making.
‘In my judgment, neither the council nor its solicitors can be criticised for saying that the defendants would not incur significant costs if they offered undertakings on which basis the council’s claim would be withdrawn. On the facts of this case, it was a pragmatic solution to the situation and certainly not coercive.’
But Kinnier allowed the application and discharged the undertakings on the basis it was unfair for them to continue, saying any real and imminent harm flowing from unpermitted development on the land no longer existed.
4 Readers' comments