Maidstone Borough Council v Fred King [2026] EWHC 1965 (KB)
Maidstone v King is a useful High Court judgment on what happens after a local planning authority has obtained a planning injunction and the defendant still does not comply. The court found deliberate and continuing contempt, imposed a six-month custodial sentence and then suspended it so that the threat of imprisonment could be used to secure compliance with the outstanding planning requirements.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2026] EWHC 1965 (KB)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 29th July 2026
- Judge
- Mr Justice Griffiths
- Case number
- KB-2022-003122
What happened at Warren Lands
The case concerned land at Sandway near Maidstone. Its lawful use was agricultural. There had been a long history of planning enforcement over caravans, mobile homes, hardstanding and residential use.
Maidstone Borough Council obtained an interim High Court injunction in 2022 and a final injunction in December 2024. The final order prohibited caravans and mobile homes remaining on the land, prohibited residential use and required the defendant to remove caravans, vehicles, hardstanding and other items within specified periods.
The defendant did not comply. Some breaches were admitted in April 2026 and others continued afterwards.
A planning injunction is not another planning appeal
Once the final injunction had been made, the defendant could not treat later planning applications, personal disagreement with the council or the needs of people living on the site as reasons simply to disregard the order.
The judge repeatedly stressed that the final order was in force, had not been appealed and had to be obeyed.
A contempt hearing is not an opportunity to reopen the planning merits that led to the injunction. The question is whether the court order has been breached and, if so, what sanction is required.
Contempt had to be proved to the criminal standard
Although the proceedings concerned civil contempt, Maidstone Borough Council carried the burden of proving the alleged breaches to the criminal standard.
The court had to be satisfied that the defendant knew of the order, deliberately did or failed to do the relevant act and knew the facts which made that conduct a breach. An intention specifically to defy the court is not essential, although it matters when sentence is considered.
On the evidence, Mr Justice Griffiths was satisfied to the criminal standard that the relevant contempts had been proved.
The breaches were serious and continuing
The outstanding breaches included caravans and mobile homes remaining on the land and vehicles not being removed as required by the final order. The court found the conduct deliberate, consequential and continuing over a substantial period.
The judge also treated as seriously aggravating the fact that the defendant had previously been subject to a different planning injunction and had received a suspended custodial sentence for breaching it.
The court concluded that a financial penalty was not enough and that only a custodial sentence would properly reflect the seriousness of the contempt.
The sentence had both punitive and coercive purposes
Planning injunction contempt is unusual because punishment is not necessarily the only objective. The court may also use the sentence to encourage the defendant finally to comply with the underlying order.
The judge identified both a punitive element and a coercive element. He initially considered nine months appropriate, then reduced the term to six months to reflect the admissions, apology and late efforts to comply.
The six-month sentence was split conceptually into three months punitive and three months coercive.
The six-month sentence was suspended
The sentence was suspended for two years. The defendant was given a further six months to achieve full compliance with the final order.
If full compliance was achieved within that period, the coercive three-month part would not have to be served and the remaining punitive element would continue suspended. If the order remained unfulfilled, the court provided for the custodial sentence to take effect, subject to the detailed terms of the order.
The structure shows how a suspended sentence can be used to give real force to a planning injunction while still allowing one final opportunity to comply.
Personal circumstances did not cancel the order
The court considered personal circumstances, including housing difficulties, health concerns and the position of adults and children living on the site.
Those matters could be relevant to mitigation and to the time allowed for compliance. They did not entitle the defendant to decide for himself that the injunction should no longer apply.
The judgment records that housing and welfare authorities could have their own duties to people affected by the clearance of the site. Those responsibilities were separate from the defendant’s obligation to obey the court order.
Section 70C did not provide a way around the injunction
While the injunction remained in force, the defendant made another planning application for caravans and Gypsy or Traveller occupation. Maidstone declined to determine it under section 70C because the same planning issues had already been considered through earlier appeals.
That later application did not suspend or dilute the injunction. See our guide to section 70C.
Why Maidstone v King matters
The case is a practical reminder of the seriousness of a planning injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
An injunction is not just another enforcement notice. Breach is contempt of court. Persistent non-compliance can lead to imprisonment, and the court can structure the sentence to punish past breaches while also coercing future compliance.
For councils, the judgment also shows why an injunction can remain effective even where ordinary enforcement action has not stopped continued occupation or physical works.
Read the full Maidstone v King judgment
The approved High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
See our guide to the planning injunction. Planning Geek also reported the sentence in Six-month suspended sentence for planning injunction breach.
Maidstone v King Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026