The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Snell & Ors [2024] EWHC 1206 (KB) (21 May 2024)

The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Snell & Ors [2024] EWHC 1206 (KB) (21 May 2024)

The claimant demonstrated a very strong case of trespass and nuisance against the defendants, with no evidence of acquiescence. The balance of convenience, including the risk of significant financial exposure and project delay, justified the grant of interim mandatory injunctive relief. Article 8 and Equality Act considerations were addressed by the availability of alternative accommodation and statutory processes, rendering the interference proportionate and justified.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1206 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield; First Defendant: Charles Snell; Second Defendant: David Snell; Third Defendant: Stephen May; Fourth Defendant: Abdellah Tayeb (A.K.A. Castro); Fifth Defendant: Michal Wujek; Sixth Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (trespass and Nuisance) / Interim Injunction Application (hearing and Order)
Outcome
Interim mandatory injunction granted against the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants; costs in the case; further hearing listed for week ending 14 June 2024.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Nuisance, Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Equality Act 2010, Homelessness, Local Authority Powers
Property Law Public Law Human Rights Law Trespass Nuisance Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR Equality Act 2010 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield

Claimant

Charles Snell

First Defendant

David Snell

Second Defendant

Stephen May

Third Defendant

Abdellah Tayeb (A.K.A. Castro)

Fourth Defendant

Michal Wujek

Fifth Defendant

Persons Unknown

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (trespass and Nuisance) / Interim Injunction Application (hearing and Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' continued occupation constitutes actionable trespass and/or nuisance
  2. 2 Whether interim mandatory injunctive relief should be granted requiring the defendants to vacate the land
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought is proportionate in light of Article 8 ECHR and Equality Act 2010 considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant demonstrated a very strong case of trespass and nuisance against the defendants, with no evidence of acquiescence. The balance of convenience, including the risk of significant financial exposure and project delay, justified the grant of interim mandatory injunctive relief. Article 8 and Equality Act considerations were addressed by the availability of alternative accommodation and statutory processes, rendering the interference proportionate and justified.

Court Disposition

Interim mandatory injunction granted against the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants; costs in the case; further hearing listed for week ending 14 June 2024.

Orders

  • Defendants to cease occupation of the affected area (on water or land) by 12 June 2024.
  • Land affected to be identified by reference to the plan attached to the order.