A “belligerent” owner of a Thames boatyard receives an injunction at the County Court in Central London after holding unlawful ‘BBQ on the Boat’ parties.
The Claimant in this case, the London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames, are the local planning authority for land known as the Hampton Riviera Boat Yard. The yard is located on the northern bank of the Thames near to Hampton Court Palace.
The defendant, Mr Myck Djurberg, 61, is the occupier of Hampton Riviera and owner of the land of the riverbank adjacent to it.
This was an application by the council for ‘injunctive relief’ to prevent future breaches of the planning permission conditions placed upon the property. The court was told that in 2018 permission was granted at Hampton Riviera to retain part of the Riverside walkway and to install six pontoons at right angles to the riverbank. The council imposed the following condition:
“The pontoons shall at no time be used other than for a use associated with the boatyard and precludes any residential use of vessels moored at them”
Mr Francis Hoar, the barrister representing the council, explained that in March 2021 Mr Djurberg “having affixed a floating wharf onto the pontoons in breach of planning consents, held an event including band, instruments, tables and chairs”. A subsequent breach was said to have occurred in May 2021 when a so-called ‘BBQ on the river’ was held.
The court heard witness evidence from Mr Craig Raybould, a Senior Planning Enforcement Officer at the council. He explained that a recent site visit, conducted on Jan 2nd 2022, revealed the pontoon was “still set up in the same way as it has for the past two and a half years” and “that furniture has been used to facilitate visiting members of the public”. Conceding that “it would be a lovely place to sit and have lunch by the river“ Mr Raybould referred to a sign that had been placed on the road outside the property. “That looks like it’s a nice place to stop when you’re driving past” commented the Judge.
The councils position was that the “breaches were serious, as they created considerable noise and disruption that the [planning] condition was intended to prevent”. His Honour Judge Saunders said “I think it’s quite a sensitive area…the council will want to protect the residents from noise. It’s a very nice part of the Thames. Not Tilbury or anything like that”.
Mr Djurberg was absent from the hearing having explained in a written letter that “he was suffering from the virus”. The Judge considered whether it was appropriate to continue in his absence and decided it was citing “additional costs to the claimant who has to justify those costs to the tax payer“.
The court was taken to an e-mail sent by Mr Djurberg purporting to defend the use of the pontoons. One e-mail dated 19th May 2021 contained the following:
“The occasional food on the run business of Mr Golebiewski is something that he has my permission to come over weekends or bank holidays, outside the boatyard working hours, and especially in the current constrain with people out of work”
Having seemingly admitting that a food business was being operated the judge said he was “not sure what defence he is seeking to run” and that the breach was “plain as a pikestaff” having looked at the photographs.
In handing down his extempore judgment HHJ Saunders said:
“This was a commercial enterprise which was being run on the pontoons, near the pontoons and was for passing boaters and members of the public passing by car. Photographs shows signage on Hampton Court Road. It’s clearly inviting people in for food and beverages. In the scheme of things this looks like a good public amenity. That is not the question before me though – is it in breach of the conditions? The conditions are strict.”
Explaining that Mr Djurberg had showed “No contrition” and had been “quite belligerent” the court ruled “an injunction is both necessary and expedient”.
As a result of the injunction any future breaches of the planning conditions could now additionally be considered a contempt of court – landing the perpetrator with up to two years in prison and a fine.
It could be said that Mr Djurberg has a long history with litigation at the courts. The council sought to draw attention to this by “highlighting applications found to be unarguable, ‘bizarre’, persued dishonestly and wholly without merit” and drawing attention to “his disobedience of court orders and his vexatious litigation”.
This included quotes from a 2017 judgment of Mr Murray Rosen QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court judge) which included:
“50. … Mr Djurberg struck me as an unusual man, with a complex relationship with the truth … his oral evidence was largely evasive – circling questions or going off at tangents – and at times nonsensical.
Judgment of Mr M H Rosen QC In the matter of Djurberg v Small & Small HC- 2015-004402
51. … Mr Djurberg seemed to have a constant strategy for obfuscation, for turning the simple into the complicated and for constructing arguments and possibilities which seemed to have little relation to reality …”.
52. He gave an impression of dishonesty and at least ruthlessness in wriggling away from any certainties and exploiting any perceived uncertainties. His responses to questioning seemed to regard the process as a means for assertive negotiation rather than requiring an effort to recount any genuine recollection of events. He made dogmatic but unlikely allegations without providing any basis; he claimed mastery of facts and history clearly outside his knowledge, and disputed the obvious; his recollection was often poor but he made out that it was strong.
53. His inability to explain sensibly the nature and history of these transactions … provided many telling examples of extreme concoction. These examples do not prove that he was deliberately false in everything he said, but I would not trust Mr Djurberg to tell the truth, especially when his interests and emotions are at stake, and would not accept anything he said without independent corroboration.”
A series of applications ruled ‘totally without merit’ led to an Extended Civil Restraining order being made against him in February 2020.
Explaining “we would be so far down the list of creditors we wouldn’t get anything” Mr Hoar said he hadn’t been instructed to ask for costs.
In The County Court at Central London
Trial on 4th January 2022
Case No. H01CL397
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames v Myck Djurberg (Trading as Hampton Riviera)
Tuesday 4th January 2022 10.30am
Before HHJ Saunders
Court 59
Mouse in the Court 
2 thoughts on “Richmond Council – You’re taking the Myck!”