Cases - East Lindsey DC v Thompson

Record details

Name

East Lindsey DC v Thompson

Date

[2001]

Citation

2 PLR 26

Keywords

Planning control

Summary

During the compliance period of an enforcement notice, the owner, Thompson, sold the land. The transfer was not registered until 16 months later. Thompson was prosecuted for non-compliance and claimed that he was no longer the owner.

That was not sufficient, said Mr Justice Richards. The court is entitled to look at other circumstances, such as the terms of the agreement between vendor and purchaser to see whether one or the other has accepted responsibility.

He observed that the defence is not just a defence of reasonable excuse; the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he has done everything that he could be expected to do to secure compliance. In this case, Thompson had made an application for planning permission after the sale, and had not communicated to the purchaser in writing any request in respect of the non-compliance. The conclusion that he had not done everything that could have been expected was a finding that was reasonably open to the court on the facts.