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

A local authority owning land beside a non-tidal river has standing to seek injunctions protecting its proprietary rights and the interests of local inhabitants. Interim relief requires a sufficiently strong case and a balance of convenience favouring intervention. Where homes and Convention rights are engaged, the court must assess whether interference is justified and proportionate.

A newcomer injunction may be granted only where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights which other remedies do not adequately meet, with effective procedural safeguards, full disclosure, and territorial and temporal limits. On the evidence, those requirements were satisfied.

The claimant local authority owned land and the riverbed adjoining part of the River Lea, within a major regeneration project. Several defendants occupied boats or a structure on the land without permission. The claimant sought renewal of an interim injunction against the named defendants and an injunction against persons unknown, including future newcomers.

Earlier hearings had addressed service, the defendants’ opportunity to obtain representation, the strength of the trespass case and the likely financial and public consequences of delay. The present judgment reconsidered the evidence and decided whether interim relief should be renewed and extended to persons unknown.

1. Outcome. The interim injunction was renewed against the named defendants and granted against persons unknown, including newcomers, pending the final hearing.
2. Standing and merits. Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 empowered the claimant to institute proceedings where it considered that doing so would promote or protect the interests of local inhabitants. The claimant also had standing as landowner and riparian owner. The evidence established a very strong, if not unanswerable, case that the named defendants and relevant persons unknown were trespassers and were causing or threatening nuisance.
3. Convention rights. The boats and structure were treated as the defendants’ homes, so Article 8 was engaged. The interference was justified and proportionate because alternative accommodation or mooring arrangements had been explored, a statutory homelessness regime was available, and continued occupation threatened substantial project delay, financial exposure and wider effects on local residents.
4. Newcomers. Applying Wolverhampton City Council and others v London Gypsies and Travellers and others [2023] UKSC 47, a newcomer injunction required a compelling need for protection of civil rights not adequately met by other remedies; procedural protection for affected persons; strict compliance with the disclosure duty; territorial and temporal limits; and justice and convenience in the particular case.
5. Those requirements were met. The order defined the affected areas, required publication and notification, allowed applications to vary or discharge it, and was limited to the period before trial. The court also considered Article 11 and found no evidence that protest rights were engaged. The injunction was therefore just and convenient.

This was a first-instance decision. Earlier interim decisions included London Borough of Enfield v Snell & Ors [2024] EWHC 1061 (KB) and [2024] EWHC 1206 (KB), but the present court reconsidered the evidence for itself.