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

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

The Claimant has demonstrated a compelling need for interim injunctive relief against the named Defendants and persons unknown, including newcomers, to prevent ongoing trespass, nuisance, and anti-social behaviour on its land. The balance of convenience, risk of significant financial harm, and public interest outweigh the Defendants' Article 8 rights, which are not disproportionately interfered with given the availability of statutory housing processes and the Claimant's efforts to assist. The procedural and substantive requirements for newcomer injunctions are satisfied under Wolverhampton principles.

Parties
Claimant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield; Defendant: Charles Snell; Defendant: David Snell; Defendant: Stephen May; Defendant: Abdellah Tayeb (AKA Castro); Defendant: Michal Wujek; Defendant: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (part 8 Claim) / Interim Injunction Application; Reserved Judgment
Outcome
Interim injunctions granted and renewed against named Defendants and persons unknown, including newcomers.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Nuisance, Anti Social Behaviour, Interim Injunctions, Homelessness, Article 8 ECHR, Persons Unknown Injunctions
Civil Procedure Property Law Local Government Law Human Rights Trespass Nuisance Anti Social Behaviour Interim Injunctions +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield

Claimant

Charles Snell

Defendant

David Snell

Defendant

Stephen May

Defendant

Abdellah Tayeb (AKA Castro)

Defendant

Michal Wujek

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (part 8 Claim) / Interim Injunction Application; Reserved Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to interim injunctive relief against named Defendants and persons unknown for trespass, nuisance, and anti-social behaviour
  2. 2 Whether the Article 8 ECHR rights of the Defendants are engaged and, if so, whether interference is justified and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for newcomer injunctions against persons unknown are met under Wolverhampton City Council principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant has demonstrated a compelling need for interim injunctive relief against the named Defendants and persons unknown, including newcomers, to prevent ongoing trespass, nuisance, and anti-social behaviour on its land. The balance of convenience, risk of significant financial harm, and public interest outweigh the Defendants' Article 8 rights, which are not disproportionately interfered with given the availability of statutory housing processes and the Claimant's efforts to assist. The procedural and substantive requirements for newcomer injunctions are satisfied under Wolverhampton principles.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions granted and renewed against named Defendants and persons unknown, including newcomers.

Orders

  • Named Defendants and persons unknown are restrained from trespassing, mooring, residing, fly tipping, causing nuisance or anti-social behaviour on the defined land.
  • Claimant to serve and publish the order as directed, including on the NBTA and via its website.