South Bucks DC v Flanagan and another
South Bucks DC v Flanagan and another
- 2002
- Weekly Law Reports [2002] 1 WLR 2601-2609(9) Journal of Planning and Environment Law [2002] JPL 1465-1473(8) .
CA 16 May 2002. The claimant council (SB) employed a solicitor (S) in private practice to prosecute breaches of two enforcement notices which required the removal of items from land owned by the first defendant (F) and occupied by the second defendant (J). S was authorised to discontinue the prosecution on certain conditions and agreed to withdraw the prosecutions and the enforcement notices at a hearing before the magistrates' court. SB subsequently applied for an injunction to force compliance with the notices. SB's appeal against the judgment that it was estopped from seeking injunctive relief was allowed. J appealed on the ground that the representation made by S to withdraw the enforcement notices gave rise to a legitimate representation that no further proceedings under these notices would be initiated. "Held" appeal dismissed. It was no part of the usual authority of a solicitor, appointed by a local planning authority to prosecute for a breach of an enforcement notice, to agree to a withdrawal of the underlying notice itself.
SOUTH BUCKS DC V FLANAGAN AND ANOTHER
ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
ESTOPPEL
OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S215
PLANNING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CA 16 May 2002. The claimant council (SB) employed a solicitor (S) in private practice to prosecute breaches of two enforcement notices which required the removal of items from land owned by the first defendant (F) and occupied by the second defendant (J). S was authorised to discontinue the prosecution on certain conditions and agreed to withdraw the prosecutions and the enforcement notices at a hearing before the magistrates' court. SB subsequently applied for an injunction to force compliance with the notices. SB's appeal against the judgment that it was estopped from seeking injunctive relief was allowed. J appealed on the ground that the representation made by S to withdraw the enforcement notices gave rise to a legitimate representation that no further proceedings under these notices would be initiated. "Held" appeal dismissed. It was no part of the usual authority of a solicitor, appointed by a local planning authority to prosecute for a breach of an enforcement notice, to agree to a withdrawal of the underlying notice itself.
SOUTH BUCKS DC V FLANAGAN AND ANOTHER
ENFORCEMENT NOTICES
ESTOPPEL
OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S215
PLANNING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF