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

The Claimant, a London borough and riparian landowner, sought renewal of an interim injunction against named occupiers and a new interim injunction against persons unknown to prevent trespass, nuisance and anti-social behaviour on land adjacent to the River Lea tied to the Meridian Water Regeneration Project. The Court found that the Claimant had standing both under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 and by virtue of riparian proprietary rights.

The evidence showed a very strong, if not unanswerable, case of actionable trespass and nuisance by the named Defendants and by persons unknown. The court considered Article 8 ECHR issues raised by occupiers living on boats or in structures but concluded that interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate in the light of alternative measures offered (including relocation of a boat and the statutory homelessness process), the risk of serious delay to the project and significant financial exposure to the Claimant.

The court applied the principles identified by the Supreme Court in Wolverhampton City Council for newcomer injunctions, was satisfied as to service and disclosure, and granted a constrained interim injunction against the named Defendants and persons unknown (including newcomers), subject to territorial and temporal limits and express procedural protections (publication, right to apply to vary or discharge and a clear return date).

The Claimant owns land traversed by a stretch of the River Lea and contracts with a contractor to carry out preparatory works for the Meridian Water Regeneration Project. The Claimant issued a Part 8 claim in trespass and nuisance and sought interim injunctive relief against five named Defendants (four of whom remained the subject of relief) and against persons unknown, including newcomers, after boats and temporary structures occupied the site and notices were posted by the Canal and River Trust suspending moorings.

Nature of the application: renewal of an interim injunction against named occupiers and a new interim injunction against persons unknown (including newcomers) to restrain trespass, nuisance, fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour and to protect the Claimant’s contractual programme for the development.

Issues before the court:

• Whether the Claimant had standing to bring the claim (s.222 Local Government Act 1972 and proprietary/riparian rights);
• Whether there was a sufficiently strong case that the named Defendants and persons unknown were trespassers and causing nuisance;
• Whether Article 8 (and Article 11) ECHR rights of occupiers or newcomers were engaged and, if so, whether interference would be justified and proportionate;
• Whether the stringent procedural and substantive tests for a newcomer/persons unknown injunction (as summarised in Wolverhampton and subsequent authorities) were satisfied; and
• Whether service and disclosure obligations were met.

Court’s reasoning: The Court accepted that the Claimant had legal standing as both a local authority (s.222) and as riparian/landowner. On the evidence (witness statements, photographs and contract documents), the Court concluded there was a very strong case of actionable trespass and nuisance by the named Defendants and by persons unknown who had deposited substantial waste and engaged in anti-social behaviour. The court addressed Article 8 claims: the occupiers’ homes were engaged, but the Claimant had taken steps (offers of alternative moorings and the homelessness route) and there was a pressing public interest in avoiding delay to a major development with significant financial consequences. Applying the Wolverhampton principles, the court found compelling justification for a newcomer injunction, adequate procedural protections (service, publication and an express right to apply to vary or discharge), full disclosure by the applicant and appropriate territorial and temporal limitations. Service directions previously ordered had been complied with. The court therefore renewed the interim injunction against the named Defendants and granted an interim injunction against persons unknown, with a return date fixed for the final hearing and directions for disclosure and preparation.

The Court renewed the interim injunction against the named Defendants and granted an interim injunction against persons unknown (including newcomers). Rationale: the Claimant had standing under section 222 Local Government Act 1972 and as riparian owner; there was a very strong case in trespass and nuisance; the interference with Article 8 rights was justified and proportionate given offers of alternatives and the significant risk of delay and financial harm to the redevelopment project; and the Wolverhampton criteria for newcomer injunctions and procedural protections were satisfied.