The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors

The local authority brought a Part 8 claim and interim application seeking to remove a number of individuals living on boats and in a structure on land owned by the Claimant, on the basis that their presence amounted to trespass and an actionable nuisance and interfered with essential construction works for the Meridian Water regeneration project. The Claimant relied on its powers under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and on its proprietary rights as riparian owner. The court treated the draft interim order as mandatory in effect and applied an elevated evidential standard (recognising the American Cyanamid principle) because the order would require the defendants to leave the site. The judge found that service had been adequate for the purposes of the hearing, that the Claimant had a very strong case that the defendants were trespassers and that alternative moorings and housing options had been explored. The court assessed Article 8 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010 implications, concluded any interference with the defendants' rights would be justified and proportionate in the circumstances, and granted interim relief ordering cessation of occupation by a specified date (12 June 2024). Costs were directed to the Claimant and a further hearing listed for the week ending 14 June 2024.

The Claimant, a London borough, issued a Part 8 claim and sought interim relief to remove several persons living on or adjacent to the River Lea who were alleged to be obstructing preparatory works for the Meridian Water regeneration project. The defendants included two members of the same family living on a narrow long boat, another boater, and a man living in a shack. The Claimant argued the occupiers were trespassing and causing nuisance, interfering with contract works which had a contractual start date and potential compensation exposure.

Procedural posture:

• The claim and an interim injunction application were issued and the Claimant sought abridgement of time and an without-notice listing on grounds of urgency.
• An initial hearing before Deputy High Court Judge Rory Dunlop KC resulted in directions, doubts about the adequacy of notice and an order adjourning part-heard issues for a subsequent hearing.
• The renewed application was heard on 14 May 2024 before His Honour Judge Auerbach, at which some defendants attended in person; relief was not pursued against one defendant and persons unknown were not pursued at that hearing.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether service was sufficient to proceed;
• Whether the Claimant had standing and a strong enough case (trespass and nuisance) to justify mandatory interim relief;
• Whether Article 8 ECHR and duties under the Equality Act 2010 weighed against granting relief;
• Proportionality and appropriate timescale for vacatur and any reasonable adjustments or rehousing steps.

Court’s reasoning:

• The Claimant has standing under section 222 Local Government Act 1972 and as landowner/riparian owner; the court accepted precedents that permanent mooring obstructing access can be an actionable nuisance and trespass.
• The court treated the draft order as mandatory in substance and therefore applied a higher standard to the evidence; it found the Claimant’s case very strong that the occupiers were trespassers.
• Service on the remaining defendants was sufficient in all the circumstances for this hearing.
• The court examined the Claimant’s asserted financial exposure (including the figures produced by the project supervisor) and accepted there was a real risk of contractual and funding consequences if works were delayed.
• Article 8 rights of the occupants and potential Equality Act considerations were engaged but the court concluded any interference would be in accordance with law and proportionate given the Claimant’s proprietary rights, the availability of alternative moorings, and the Claimant’s steps under the statutory homelessness regime and other support measures.
• The court therefore granted an interim injunction requiring cessation of occupation of the defined area by 12 June 2024, reserved costs to the Claimant and listed a further hearing for the week ending 14 June 2024.

This was a first instance hearing. The court granted the Claimant interim relief in the form of an injunction (mandatory in effect) requiring the affected defendants to cease occupation of the specified area by 12 June 2024. The judge concluded the Claimant had a very strong case in trespass and nuisance, service was adequate for the hearing, alternative moorings and housing options had been pursued, and any interference with Article 8 and Equality Act interests would be lawful and proportionate.