Cases - Thompson v East Lindsey District Council

Record details

Name

Thompson v East Lindsey District Council

Date

[2002]; [2002]

Citation

EWHC 416 (Admin); PLR 73

Legislation

Human Rights Act 1998

Keywords

Planning control - Human Rights Act s.179(3)

Summary

After selling the land but before registration of title, Thompson was prosecuted for non-compliance with an enforcement notice. He was convicted and he appealed on the ground that, having established a bona fide sale, he had made out the defence in section 179(3).

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.