Deputy High Court judge gives reasons for granting interim injunctions against occupants of boats trespassing on land needed for regeneration project

The London Borough of Enfield has secured interim injunctions against the occupants of boats and land on the River Lea who it has claimed obstruct progress on a £6bn development of 10,000 homes.

It sought injunctions from Duncan Atkinson KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, against people the council said were trespassing on land needed for the Meridian Water regeneration project.

Cases were brought against four named defendants and Persons Unknown though the proceedings were dropped against one of the original defendants who was no longer in the area.

Two of the defendants live in boats while another lives with a number of dogs in a structure on the adjacent land that he calls a shed.

Enfield’s contractor Taylor Woodrow is to carry out essential preparatory works that include clearing the Lea embankment and works abutting the river, but has been unable to start.

In May 2024, HHJ Auerbach granted Enfield interim relief against the named defendants, who were required to give up their occupation of its land by 12 June 2024. They failed to do so.

At a 12 June hearing Mr Atkinson renewed the interim injunction order and extended it to persons unknown.

In a reserved judgment published this week and setting out his reasons, Mr Atkinson said he was satisfied that sufficient steps had been taken to effect service both on the named defendants and persons unknown.

He said the boats and the shed were their current homes "and I proceed on the basis that granting the relief sought would interfere with their Article 8 rights”.

But he said the boats could be moved and the occupant of the shed structure had long known that he did not have permission to live on the site, and Enfield had sought to rehouse him.

Mr Atkinson said Enfield was “acting so as to vindicate its rights both as local authority and as property owner.

“There is a very strong, if not unanswerable, case that these defendants are trespassers. Further, if I am satisfied that there is a significant risk of harm to the claimant if relief is not granted…it will be demonstrated that, in terms of the balancing exercise required for Article 8(2) purposes, the interference with their Article 8(1) rights in this case, by the granting of the relief sought, would be justified and not disproportionate.”

Mr Atkinson said the defendants had failed to abide by the interim injunction made in May and that Enfield had “a very strong, if not unanswerable, case” that their continued presence was actionable trespass, as well as a nuisance.

He concluded the narrow balance of convenience justified an interim injunction against the current trespassers and against newcomers, and that this was a just and convenient course of action.

Enfield has a lawful right to control those occupying, or mooring adjacent to, its land and to remove those barring that access and to prevent the build-up of rubbish that risks public health.

It had demonstrated a pressing need to prevent any further delay to the infrastructure work, thereby avoiding “onerous financial consequences” that would follow any delay.

Mr Atkinson added: “I am also satisfied that the Article 8 and 11 rights of any newcomer are not engaged, and that, even if they were, the balance required would weigh overwhelmingly in favour of permitting the interference consequent on the relief sought by the claimant.”

Mark Smulian