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

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

The Claimant has a very strong case that the Defendants are trespassers and/or causing a nuisance on land required for a major regeneration project. The balance of convenience, the risk of financial loss and project delay, and the availability of alternative accommodation or mooring options justify the grant of a mandatory interim injunction. Any interference with Article 8 or Equality Act rights is justified and proportionate in the circumstances.

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
Civil (part 8 Claim) / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Interim mandatory injunction granted against First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants; costs in the case; further directions for hearing and service.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Nuisance, Interim Injunctions, Article 8 ECHR, Equality Act 2010, Homelessness, Local Authority Powers
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Equality Law Trespass Nuisance Interim Injunctions Article 8 ECHR +3 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

Civil (part 8 Claim) / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are trespassing and/or causing a nuisance on the Claimant's land
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to an interim mandatory injunction requiring the Defendants to vacate the land
  3. 3 Whether the grant of interim relief would disproportionately interfere with the Defendants' Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant has a very strong case that the Defendants are trespassers and/or causing a nuisance on land required for a major regeneration project. The balance of convenience, the risk of financial loss and project delay, and the availability of alternative accommodation or mooring options justify the grant of a mandatory interim injunction. Any interference with Article 8 or Equality Act rights is justified and proportionate in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Interim mandatory injunction granted against First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants; costs in the case; further directions for hearing and service.

Orders

  • Defendants to cease occupation of the affected area (land and water) by 12 June 2024 as identified in the plan attached to the order.
  • Matter to be listed for a further two-hour hearing in the week ending 14 June 2024 for further directions or applications.