Respondents seeking injunction against claimant requiring him to demolish barn – Court granting injunction – Claimant seeking to vary terms of injunction – Claimant relying upon representations made to him by respondents’ planning officers – Claimant contending that respondents should be estopped from taking enforcement action – Whether respondents’ authority delegated – Whether claimant able to rely upon doctrine of estoppel – Application dismissed
In 1988 the respondent district council issued an enforcement notice against the claimant in respect of a barn (the smaller building), which the claimant had substantially completed on his land, Kingscroft Farm. In 1991 the claimant began building another barn (the larger building) on his land and another enforcement notice was issued. He appealed against both notices, but his appeals were dismissed by the Secretary of State. He then appealed to the High Court on a point of law; his appeal was allowed and the Secretary of State’s decision was quashed.
In 1994 the claimant’s appeal against the second enforcement notice was redetermined and the Secretary of State upheld the enforcement notice. In 1996 the respondents sought an injunction against the claimant, requiring that he demolish the larger building within four months and the smaller building within six months of the final determination of his then outstanding appeal against the refusal of planning permission. In May 1996 an injunction was granted. The claimant’s planning appeal was dismissed, and it followed that he was required to demolish the smaller building by January 1997. The smaller building remains in situ.
The claimant sought to vary the terms of the injunction. He accepted the general principle that a statutory body should not be estopped from performing their public duty, but relied upon Lever Finance Ltd v Westminster (City) London Borough Council [1971] 1 QB 222 and Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council (1978) 77 LGR 185 to contend that the respondents ought to have been estopped from taking enforcement action against him, and, in particular, from seeking the injunction. He submitted that the respondents’ planning officers made representations to him in 1986 and 1987, giving him clear and unequivocal advice to the effect that he was entitled to exercise his permitted development rights contained in the General Development Order 1997, including the right to construct a barn on his land. He claimed that he acted upon that advice to his detriment, and began to construct the smaller building. In the circumstances, he was fully justified in assuming that the respondents’ planning officers had submitted that he had the power to bind the council and that they ought to be bound by the representations made to him. The respondents submitted: (i) that the estoppel point had been raised on a number of earlier occasions and the claimant was not entitled to raise it again; and (ii) Western Fish was distinguishable. The respondents applied for an order that the applicant be committed to prison for contempt on the basis that he was in breach of the injunction.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The claimant was entitled to raise the issue of estoppel, as it had not been previously determined after full argument on the point. Although the claimant had previously complained of injustice, there was nothing to suggest that estoppel had been considered in the way that it was advanced at this stage. However, it was plain from Western Fish that the court was determined to restrict the approach of estoppel as it applied to statutory bodies. In the instant case, there was no evidence of the respondents’ authority having been delegated on such important matters. There was no evidence justifying the claimant’s belief that the officers had such authority. The claimant was not entitled to rely upon the doctrine of estoppel, nor upon any alleged agreement to construct such a building on his land. Although there had been a flagrant breach of the court order, the claimant was given an extension of time to comply.
Marc Willers (instructed by Battens, of Yeovil) appeared for the claimant; Natalie Lieven (instructed by the solicitor to Salisbury District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
