The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield vs Charles Snell & Others

This case concerned the Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield seeking an injunction against several boaters for trespass and nuisance on land required for a major housing development project.

TLDR:

• The claimant is a London local authority involved in a housing development project.
• Defendants include boaters and individuals living on the land in question.
• The court granted an interim injunction requiring the defendants to vacate the land.
• The case involved issues of trespass, nuisance, and property rights.
• The court balanced the defendants' Article 8 rights against the claimant's project needs.

The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield, the claimant, is a local authority in London engaged in the Meridian Water Regeneration Project, aimed at developing 10,000 new homes. The project is situated on freehold land owned by the claimant, traversed by the River Lea.

The claimant contracted Vinci Construction UK Limited, operating through Taylor Woodrow, for essential preparatory works, including clearing the river embankment. The works were scheduled to commence on 6 December 2023. On 18 April 2024, the claimant filed a part 8 claim for trespass and nuisance against five named defendants and persons unknown, seeking an interim and final injunction.

The second defendant, David Snell, and his son, the first defendant, Charles Snell, had been living on a narrow long boat on the River Lea for several years. The third defendant, Steven May, had a boat moored on the river but was no longer sought for relief as he had left. The fourth defendant, Abdellah Tayeb (a.k.a. Castro), also had a boat moored on the river, and the fifth defendant, Michal Wujek, lived in a structure on the claimant's land.

The claimant argued that the defendants' presence was obstructing the project and causing financial penalties. The court initially adjourned the application for an interim injunction for further evidence and clarification. The claimant provided additional witness statements and evidence, including the impact of the defendants' presence on the project timeline and financial implications.

During the hearing, the court considered the strength of the claimant's case, the defendants' Article 8 rights, and the potential impact on both parties. The court found that the claimant had a strong case for trespass and nuisance and that the defendants' presence was disrupting the project. The court also considered the claimant's efforts to provide alternative mooring locations and housing support for the defendants.

The court granted the interim injunction, requiring the defendants to vacate the land by 12 June 2024. The court acknowledged the defendants' Article 8 rights but found the interference justified and proportionate given the project's significance and the claimant's property rights. The court also noted the claimant's statutory housing duty and efforts to accommodate the defendants' needs.

The court directed a further hearing in the week ending 14 June 2024 to address any further relief or applications. The claimant was responsible for personal service of the final order, which would be sealed by the court.

Legal representatives: Francis Hoar for the claimant, David Snell and Michal Wujek appeared in person.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Auerbach (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1206 (KB)