The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1206 (KB)
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
5 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2064 (KB)
High Court
A big construction project was blocked by people living on the land illegally. The court ordered them to leave, weighing their right to a home against the huge financial losses the project faced. The court also made a special order to stop *future* illegal occupants from moving in.
Key Facts
- •The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield (Claimant) sought injunctions against individuals and persons unknown trespassing on land needed for the Meridian Water Regeneration Project.
- •Defendants were residing on boats or in structures on the Claimant's land, obstructing construction.
- •The Claimant argued significant financial penalties (£142,000 per week) for project delays.
- •Interim injunctions were previously granted, but Defendants remained on the land.
- •The case addressed service issues, the Defendants' Article 8 rights (right to a private life), and the legality of 'newcomer' injunctions against unknown future trespassers.
Legal Principles
Local authority standing to bring civil proceedings for the protection of inhabitants' interests.
Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972
Local authority standing as a landowner to prevent public nuisance.
Richmond London Borough Council v Trotman ([2024] EWHC 9 (KB))
Permanent mooring obstructing access constitutes private and public nuisance.
Ackerman v London Borough of Richmond [2017] EWHC 84 (Admin)
Proprietary right of local authority to prevent mooring on its land.
Royal Borough of Kingston v Salzer [2022] EWHC 3081 (KB)
Unlawful mooring constitutes trespass.
His Honour Judge Auerbach's judgment (paragraph 41)
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) considerations in eviction cases.
Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 45
Legality of 'newcomer' injunctions against unknown future trespassers.
Wolverhampton City Council and others London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47
American Cyanamid test for interim injunctions, adapted for 'persons unknown' cases requiring 'compelling justification'.
American Cyanamid v Ethicon Limited [1975] UKHL 1; Valero Energy v Persons Unknown & Bencher & Ors [2024] EWHC 134
Outcomes
Interim injunctions granted against named defendants and persons unknown.
Strong case of trespass and nuisance; significant risk of harm to the Claimant if relief not granted; balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR justified interference with Defendants' rights; Wolverhampton principles satisfied for 'newcomer' injunction.
No adjournment granted for Defendants despite requests for legal representation or interpreters.
Defendants had sufficient opportunity to obtain legal representation; Mr Wujek demonstrated excellent English comprehension; legal terminology issues should be addressed by lawyers, not interpreters.
Similar Cases
Multiplex Construction Europe Limited v Persons Unknown
[2024] EWHC 239 (KB)
Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others
[2023] UKSC 47
Basildon Borough Council v Eliza Sanders & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2954 (KB)
The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2252 (KB)