LORD JUSTICE MOSES: There is before the court an appeal against the decision of Pitchers J dated 15 June 2004 whereby he made an order suspending the committal of this appellant for a period of twelve months from that date, or until the conclusion of the final hearing of these proceedings, to determine whether the injunction be made permanent whichever was the later of the date. The committal was for a period of six months.

On 2 November 2005, this court extended time for the appellant to appeal so that transcripts could be obtained. The concern of this court was that although an order for committal to prison be made, this appellant was not represented. Before us today the first and major application made by this appellant was for an adjournment. He told us that he had made considerable attempts to obtain legal representation, had been to solicitors Piper Rudlick Grey Carey, had believed that they would appear for him today but had only learnt, either last night or possibly only this morning, that they were not going to represent him today. So he is here before us today, barely one month before the substantive trial is to take place at the Birmingham District Registry as to whether the local authority’s injunction should be made permanent.

Bearing in mind that the committal has been suspended, it may be thought at first blush that there is not a lot of point in this proceedings. However, of course it is a serious matter for a committal order to be made, suspended or not, in relation to disobedience of an order. For it is disobedience to an order that is fundamentally underlying these proceedings. This is not a point that it appears Mr Daleman is either able or prepared to accept. This case is not about the merits or otherwise of what he is alleged but denies doing on his land.

Ever since 2001 when he bought this land, it is quite apparent that this appellant has felt enormous resentment and indeed anger, which we have heard exhibited today, at what he regards as wholly unjustified interference by the local planning authority, the Northamptonshire County Council. It is important, in my view, that he should understand that this case is not about what did or did not take place upon his land between the end of 2001 when he first bought the land and 2003. It is concerned with disobedience to court orders. All of us, resentful though we may be at what appears to us to be unnecessary and unjustified interference with the land, have only one course, that is to challenge such interference in the appropriate procedures, but once those challenges have failed it is incumbent upon us, like every other citizen in this country, to obey the law.

Pitchers J found in June 2004 that this appellant had not obeyed the law. What had happened was that he was alleged to have undertaken unauthorised development. An enforcement notice had been served upon him in September 2002. A planning appeal in relation to appeals against that enforcement notice had taken place on 29 May 2003. On 5 September 2003, this appellant had appealed against the enforcement notice, there was also another one that is not material to this appeal, but had, as he tells us, because of lack of money discontinued that appeal. That therefore was an end of the matter. He was required, pursuant to that enforcement notice, to remove that which was said to be unauthorised development, namely waste rubble on his site.

He has throughout continued to challenge whether it was unauthorised development, but as I have tried to explain, once he had ceased to appeal against the decision of the planning inspector in May 2003, that was an end of the matter. It was no longer open to him to challenge that enforcement notice.

It was in consequence of his refusal to accept the validity of the enforcement notice, that Douglas Brown J made an order of the court, namely an interim injunction, on 21 November 2003, relating to what was alleged to be his bringing of waste onto his land. Six further breaches were observed by Mr Richmond on behalf of Northamptonshire County Council between February 2004 and the end of February, 27 February 2004. It was though six breaches which formed the subject matter of the application to commit before Pitchers J.

The purpose of the application was to enforce obedience to the law, not in relation to what was or was not happening on the land. Indeed, it is recorded by Pitchers J in his judgment that there was little factual dispute about what had happened in February 2004. What Mr Daleman was attempting to do was to argue the legality or otherwise of what he was doing on the land. For reasons that I have attempted to explain, it was not open to him to argue about those matters. Charitably, Pitchers J did consider those arguments and ruled as a matter of law that there was nothing in them. Strictly speaking, according to the law, that was not Pitchers J’s business. It was far too late to challenge the legality or otherwise of the development on the land.

So it is that this appeal is now before this court. One thing is perfectly plain, that the resentment and anger that Mr Daleman felt back in 2001, when the local authority first sought to query what was happening on the land, has only been exacerbated. There is nothing I can say, I fear, that will assuage that anger, other than to attempt to persuade him that he is not being treated any differently than anybody else. The local planning authority is not acting on its own behalf, it is acting on behalf of all the charge payers in one of the most beautiful parts of this country. Expense has only been aggravated by the intransigent attitude of this appellant.

In my view, there are no grounds whatever for adjourning this matter, since to do so would only be a waste of time. There is absolutely nothing in this appeal at all, and therefore to require Mr Daleman to incur yet further expense in obtaining legal representation for a completely hopeless appeal would, in my view, be mere beating of the wind.

In those circumstances, I for my part would refuse this application for an adjournment and reject this appeal. There is nothing in my view in it whatever.

LADY JUSTICE SMITH: I agree.

LORD JUSTICE WARD: I also agree.