Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Double-click to enter the short title
b) they may, in their own name, make representations in the interests of the inhabitants at any public inquiry held by or on behalf of any Minister or public body under any enactment.”
37.This power to enforce obedience with public law does not require the involvement of the Attorney General as established in Stoke-on-Trent City Council v B&Q (Retail) Ltd [1984] AC 754. 38.The fundamental principles to be followed by the court in exercising its discretion under the Local Government Act 1972 s222 are set out in City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd [1992] 3 All ER 697 at 714 per Bingham LJ and include: “…the essential foundation for the exercise of the court’s discretion to grant an injunction is not that the offender is deliberately and flagrantly flouting the law but the need to draw the inference that the defendant’s unlawful operations will continue unless and until effectively restrained by the law and that nothing short of an injunction will be effective to restrain them: see Wychavon DC v Midland Enterprises (Special Events) Ltd (1986) 86 LGR 83 at 89.” 39. The court has power to attach a power of arrest to an injunction is granted under the Local Government Act s222, utilising its power under the Police and Justice Act 2006, s27.
The Wolverhampton case
40. The Wolverhampton case is considered by Freedman J at paragraphs 22 – 26 of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Hampshire County Council v Loveridge and Ors [2024] EWHC 1828 (KB). 41. Throughout the judgment, the court examined whether this was a new type of injunction and analysed newcomer injunctions initially outside the context of proceedings against Travellers, with the earliest in time being Venables [2001] Fam 430. This was possibly the first contra mundum/against the world
Draft 31 March 2025 12:22
Page 11
51
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator