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

Hearing date: 14 May 2024

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30am on 21 May 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction and Background

The Claimant is a London local authority. This claim arises in the context of the Meridian Water Regeneration Project (Meridian Water), which is a project to develop 10,000 new homes. The project is located on freehold land owned by the Claimant traversed by a stretch of the River Lea (sometimes spelled Lee).

The Claimant has a contract with Vinci Construction UK Limited, which operates through Taylor Woodrow, for what the Claimant describes as essential preparatory works and development of the river embankment for the purposes of the Meridian Water project, to include the clearing of the embankment and related construction works abutting the river. These particular works had a contractual commencement date of 6 December 2023.

On 18 April 2024 the Claimant filed a part 8 claim in trespass and nuisance and to prevent alleged anti-social behaviour. There were five named Defendants. The Sixth Defendant was persons unknown.

The Second Defendant, David Snell, is the father of the First Defendant, Charles Snell. David is 64. Charles is 29. They have been living on a narrow long boat on the relevant stretch of the River Lea for several years.

The Third Defendant, Steven May, is said by the Claimant to have had a narrow long boat moored on the relevant stretch of river. When the action began the Claimant's position was that it believed that he was continuing to use the boat at least as a place to sleep. However, during the course of the hearing before me, I was told that relief was no longer sought against him, as the Claimant now understands that he has gone.

The Fourth Defendant, Abdellah Tayeb (or Castro) also has a boat which the Claimant says is currently moored on the relevant stretch of river.

The Fifth Defendant, Michal Wujek, is living in a structure on the Claimant's relevant land which the Claimant calls a shack and he calls a shed. He has been doing so for at least some months.

The claim is for a final injunction. It was accompanied by an application for an interim injunction. Both were sealed on 21 April 2024. The Claimant applied for time for service to be abridged, and for the hearing of the interim injunction application to be listed without notice to the Defendants, due to what was said to be the extreme urgency of the application.

The claim and application were accompanied by a signed witness statement of Karen Maguire dated 18 April 2024 and containing a statement of truth. Ms Maguire is the Claimant's Lead Officer for Trespass and Encampments.

At paragraph 3 Ms Maguire stated that abridgment of time for service was necessary because of a fear “that if this application is not proceeded with immediately there will be at least 21 days before the Claimant is able to obtain the relief they seek against the Defendants and in that time the Council will face financial penalties of around £142,000 per week and there is a risk of significant damage could be sustained to the locations that the proposed Order seeks to protect …”. She also provided a breakdown of those figures at paragraph 32.

There was a hearing in respect of that application, before Rory Dunlop KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 1 May 2024. There was by that time before the Court also a further statement from a process server, Aron Graves, of 25 April 2024, indicating what steps had been taken with a view to bringing documents relating to the claim to the attention of the Defendants. Mr Hoar of counsel appeared at that hearing for the Claimant. The Second and Fifth Defendants appeared in person. There was no attendance by, or appearance for, the other Defendants on that occasion.

The judge announced that he was adjourning the application part heard to a date between 14 and 17 May 2024. A reserved judgment was handed down on 3 May 2024 and the judge's associated order was sealed on 7 May 2024. The order included further directions for today's hearing.

In summary, the following pertinent points arise from that judgment and order.

First, the judge was not satisfied that the Defendants had had sufficient notice, nor that there was sufficient justification for proceeding without proper notice. There was a letter before the judge from the Community Law Partnership (CLP) referring to David Snell as their client and indicating that legal aid funding was being sought. Mr Snell asked for the hearing to be adjourned to any date in the week of 13 May, other than 13 May itself, when he had a medical appointment, on the basis that it was anticipated that legal aid would be sorted out by then. Mr Wujek indicated that he was also considering instructing CLP.

Secondly, and relatedly, the judge sought clarification and explanation of the figures given in Ms Maguire's witness statement at paragraphs 3 and 32. At paragraphs 40 and 41 of his judgment the judge noted that he had been told that the Claimant had not yet incurred any financial penalties, as the mitigation, by way of fencing that had been put in place by Taylor Woodrow around the area being occupied by the Defendants, had so far been effective. The judge said that he was very troubled by this, as, had he not asked questions he would have been misled into believing that the Claimant had been paying penalties at the rate of £142,000 since the issuing of the claim. He gave directions for further evidence to be produced about this aspect for the adjourned hearing.

Thirdly, while recognising that it would of course be a matter for the judge presiding at the adjourned hearing, the judge indicated that for his part he would have wanted to know more about what the implications for the Defendants would be, were the interim injunction sought to be granted, on the basis that he would regard this as relevant to weighing the balance of prejudice.

The application came back before me at a hearing on 14 May 2024.

Since the last hearing the Claimant had filed a second witness statement of Ms Maguire dated 7 May 2024 and a statement of Rauf Iqbal, Strategic Infrastructure Works Construction Programme Manager, also of 7 May 2024. It has also filed a further process-server's statement, from Frederick Chatfield, of 10 May 2024.

At the hearing before me Mr Hoar of counsel once again appeared for the Claimant. The Second Defendant, David Snell, and the Fifth Defendant, Michal Wujek, each again appeared in person. David Snell told me, and I accept, that he was also appearing on behalf of his son, Charles Snell.

As I have noted, in the course of the hearing Mr Hoar indicated that relief was no longer sought against the Third Defendant, Stephen May. He also indicated in the course of the hearing that, at least at this hearing, relief was no longer sought against persons unknown, given what he acknowledged was a failure thus far fully to comply with DHCJ Rory Dunlop KC's specific order regarding service in that regard. He indicated that this may be revisited.

In discussion at the start of the hearing, which began at midday, Mr Snell indicated that he did not have legal aid or legal representation, he did not anticipate that situation changing in the future and he was not asking me to postpone this hearing. He did not have any issue about service.

Mr Wujek did apply for an adjournment at the start. He said he had contacted CLP on 30 April 2024 with a view to representation but had only heard back from them that they would be unable to help him by email late on 8 May. He also said he had received some documents only very late. He had contacted the Court about the logistics of providing documents he might wish to rely upon, but had only heard back yesterday. He needed more time to marshal his arguments and evidence. He said he was at a disadvantage as a litigant in person and because English is not his first language. Mr Hoar opposed the application.

I gave an oral decision refusing the application. I considered that Mr Wujek had, taking account of the first postponement, now had a fair opportunity to obtain legal representation. His command of English is excellent – he had expressed himself fluently and articulately to me. Any issues about service could be considered by me as part of my overall consideration. His being a litigant in person was not, as such, a reason not to proceed. I would make appropriate allowances for that. He could put in any documents he had brought with him on which he wished to rely. If I granted an injunction I would allow time to comply. Mr Hoar had raised an issue as to whether legal aid would in fact be available in any event at all, as the Defendants are said to be trespassers. That appeared to me to be a potential issue, but I did not rely upon it.

After lunch it transpired that an email had been sent to the Court from CLP at just after midday. In summary, this confirmed that they did not have legal aid funding and were unable to represent Mr Snell. They asked for a second adjournment...