The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2064 (KB)
The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
21 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1206 (KB)
High Court
A council needed land for building. People were living on boats and in a shed on that land. The council got a court order to make them leave by a certain date, balancing the need for development with the people's rights to housing and a home.
Key Facts
- •The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield (Claimant) brought a Part 8 claim against several defendants for trespass and nuisance on land needed for the Meridian Water regeneration project.
- •Defendants were individuals living on boats or in a structure on the Claimant's land.
- •The Claimant sought a final injunction and an interim injunction to prevent further disruption to construction works.
- •The initial application for an interim injunction was adjourned due to insufficient notice to the defendants and unclear financial claims by the Claimant.
- •At the second hearing, the Claimant withdrew its claim against some defendants and the interim injunction was granted against the remaining defendants.
- •The injunction required the defendants to vacate the affected area by June 12, 2024.
Legal Principles
A local authority has standing to bring a claim for trespass and nuisance to protect the interests of its inhabitants under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972.
Local Government Act 1972, section 222
The unauthorized mooring of a boat on a riparian owner's land constitutes both trespass and nuisance.
Ackerman v London Borough of Richmond [2017] EWHC 84 (Admin); RB Kingston-upon-Thames v Salzer [2022] EWHC 3081
In considering an interim injunction, the court should evaluate the strength of the evidence and apply a higher standard than a 'serious question to be tried' where the interim relief would, in effect, grant the ultimate relief sought.
American Cyanamid v Ethicon Limited [1975] UKHL 1; [1975] AC 396
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to respect for private and family life, but interference is permitted if it is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society.
Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights
The Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments to be made for disabled persons, but this duty is additional to Article 8 considerations.
Equality Act 2010; Akerman-Livingston v Aster Communities Limited [2015] UKSC 15; [2015] AC 1399
Outcomes
Interim injunction granted against four defendants.
The Claimant had a strong case for trespass and nuisance; the interference with the defendants' Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate; and the Claimant's statutory housing duty provided a mechanism to address the defendants' needs.
Defendants ordered to vacate the affected area by June 12, 2024.
Balancing the needs of the project and the defendants' situations, a short timeframe was deemed appropriate.
Costs reserved for the Claimant.
Standard practice given the outcome.
Similar Cases
Basildon Borough Council v Eliza Sanders & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2954 (KB)
The London Borough of Richmond on Thames v Alistair Trotman
[2023] EWHC 2461 (KB)
Maidstone BC v Goliea Brazil & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 965 (KB)
The Mayor & Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v Michael Casey & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2252 (KB)