The Injunction That Arrived Too Late
A local council approved a 24-hour freight depot beside a residential estate. Residents learned of the permit only after construction began. They apply to the Supreme Court for judicial review of the council's decision, arguing the planning officer failed to consider a mandatory traffic report. The council concedes the report was overlooked but argues the depot is nearly complete and employs 60 people. The residents also seek an injunction to halt works pending the hearing. The hearing is listed in eight weeks; construction will finish in five. The residents' solicitor warns that even a successful review may result in the permit being remitted to the council rather than refused outright.
1. Advise the residents on whether an injunction is likely to be granted, referring to the balance of convenience and the purpose of judicial review.
Read the worked answer
An injunction is a discretionary equitable remedy, so the court weighs the balance of convenience, not just the strength of the residents' case.
Factors favouring the residents: the alleged error is jurisdictional in nature (failure to consider a mandatory relevant consideration), the harm to residents is ongoing and hard to reverse once trucks run, and damages would be an inadequate remedy for loss of amenity.
Factors against: the depot is nearly complete, 60 jobs are at stake, and halting works causes certain financial loss to the developer. Courts are reluctant to grant relief that effectively decides the merits before trial.
Likely outcome: a court may refuse the injunction because the practical effect would be to pre-empt the review, and because the residents' ultimate remedy (remitter) would not stop the depot anyway. The residents should instead seek an undertaking as to damages or expedited hearing. Key judgement: an injunction protects the process, not the outcome; where the outcome would not change, the balance tips against restraint.
2. Explain why a successful judicial review may not achieve the residents' goal, and identify what that reveals about the limits of judicial review.
Read the worked answer
Judicial review tests the legality of a decision, not its merits. If the council failed to consider the traffic report, the court can quash the decision and remit it for reconsideration. On remitter, the council may consider the report and still approve the depot, because the report may not change the outcome.
This reveals three limits:
- No substitution of judgement - the court cannot substitute its own planning view.
- Procedure over substance - correcting process does not guarantee a different result.
- Discretionary remedies - even a proven error may yield no practical benefit if relief is refused or the decision is re-made.
The residents' realistic goal is therefore a better-reasoned decision, not necessarily refusal. If they want the depot stopped, they need a different legal pathway, such as statutory merits review (if available) or a planning enforcement argument, not judicial review alone.