Jenrick's response, including the statement that there is no acceptable accommodation for illegal immigrants (where's he putting them, then?) is particularly vile

Plus this whole hotel gig was his idea.

Not just odd! The comments by the judges in the Court of Appeal are, allowing for judicial euphemism, little short of an excoriation of the earlier decision by Eyre J. in the High Court.

It seemed very odd in reference to the balance of convenience to create a situation where they would have to relocate them all before the substantive trial.

Extraordinary, particularly since there was no recognition of the domino effect this would entail

It was one of those rulings that made me go back and look over the relevant laws again, because it was so bizarre that it made me think I must not know the law properly and I must have missed something really important. It takes awhile for you to realise that no, it's just a really bad decision

seemed bizarre

Epping council got a bit of a mauling in the judgement. They ought to be embarrassed but no doubt these days won’t be.

True, however I did think the Bell’s submission only waiting a year for a reply was not too bad. Eight weeks for a reply in the digital aged does seem a bit unrealistic.

The whole interim decision was very weird It wasn’t an emergency - the local authority had done nothing since the start of the year In the circumstances the status quo was the obvious first instance decision pending

We need to know who paid for the legal action to happen. Same people that are buying red paint in bulk for the unemployable?

The case was brought by the local authority

If I were a resident I’d be asking for a refund on my council tax and for the finance officer who signed off the legal costs to be sacked on Monday. That would look good painted on a roundabout.

Quite, it's a complete waste of money

I'm sure the press will report this in a calm and facted based way...

I did hear the first judge had been a Tory candidate four times in general elections (courtesy of Jon Craig on Sky News at the time).

Looks like the one the judges overturning today has Labour connections, so accusations of judicial political bias flying all around.

Time to hide the Wheelie bins

Waiting for "traitors" comments from the Mail and telegraph

The interesting question will be what happens if the council carry on with the case and win. We don't use "balance of convenience" at that stage. There is some case law to do with the nuisance caused by jet engines which says the court can refuse an injunction on public interest grounds.

But in that case the gov had to pay compensation to the local residents because they were the ones bringing the action. There isn't really the same alternative with the planning regs.

The prima facie rule that a continuing wrong will be injuncted applies even more strongly with planning, because you can't really monetise the consequences of non-compliance in the same way. The fact that the planning rules are inconvenient for the government is a reason for them to change the law.