KB--2025-001314 - [2025] EWHC 2809 (KB)

At this hearing, the Claimant seeks a full injunction with both mandatory and prohibitory elements. The prohibitory elements of the Order are to restrain the Defendants from carrying out any further operational development on the Land and from using the Land in breach of planning control.

The mandatory elements seek the demolition of the barn, the removal of any hardstanding material laid by the Defendants (as opposed to preexisting) and removal of any tools or equipment placed on the Land in connection with the First Defendant’s tree surgery business and removal of rubbish, waste, rubble generated by the unlawful development of the Land and/or created by the compliance with the mandatory steps in the Order.

During the hearing, the Claimant has narrowed its application for an indefinite restraining part of the injunction Order to a time limitation of ten years.

The case proceeded in the absence of the Defendants as I am satisfied that both have had the opportunity to attend and have taken decisions not to do so. There has been no application for more time, and the Defendants have been in possession of the Claimant’s application and evidence over a six-month period. Neither of the Defendants have served evidence, including failing to add a statement of truth to representations, as directed by the Court. Ultimately, balancing the background to the hearing, including the opportunities given to the Defendants to file evidence and to attend in person, to the public interest in proceeding and the interests of the Claimant, I am satisfied that it is just for the case to proceed in the absence of the Defendants. The Defendants appeared to raise all the arguments they wished to raise, and scrutiny was given to each point made by Ms. Watson in her correspondence. The Claimant has responded to Ms. Watson’s arguments, and she has had the opportunity to reply further but, save as to costs, has not chosen to do so.