Precision and Clarity in Injunctions: Protecting Tenants from Unjust Committal

Introduction

This commentary examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Connexus Homes Ltd v Weaver & Anor ([2025] EWCA Civ 655), which clarified the requirement that injunctions be expressed in clear, certain and unambiguous terms before contempt proceedings and committal to prison can follow. The appeal arose from a suspended committal sentence imposed on Gerald and Belinda Weaver for alleged breaches of an injunction ordering them to permit safety inspections of their rented home and outbuildings. The Weavers, caring for their autistic daughter “T” and suffering significant health issues of their own, resisted access on the basis of her anxiety and risk of contamination to her support dogs. This case highlights the tension between a landlord’s statutory duties, a tenant’s contractual obligations, and the protections owed to vulnerable persons under both procedural fairness principles and the Equality Act 2010.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Weavers’ appeal against findings of contempt and the suspended prison sentence. It held that:

The injunction requiring compliance with paragraph 11 of the tenancy agreement was too broad and lacked the precision necessary to support committal proceedings.
Because the order did not define in clear terms what “reasonable access” meant—particularly in relation to outbuildings and kennels—the Weavers could not know with certainty what conduct would avoid contempt.
The judge should have dismissed the committal application on that ground alone and, in any event, should have made individual findings on each alleged breach.
The Weavers’ complaint against their solicitor and the invocation of the Equality Act did not establish any additional ground to uphold the committal order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Low v Innes (1864) 4 DeGJ&S 286
Lord Westbury LC stressed that injunction orders “must lay down a clear and definite rule” so that defendants know exactly what is prohibited or required.
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Tsang (1985) LS Gaz 2331
Sir John Donaldson MR held that injunctions must be “expressed in terms which make it clear beyond peradventure” what the defendant must not do.
Harris v Harris [2001] 2 FLR 895
Munby J reiterated that enforcement by committal demands that orders be “clear, certain and unambiguous.”
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co v Sage [2017] EWCA Civ 973
Henderson LJ advised that a judge should set out each ground of committal and decide whether it is proved before ordering sanctions.
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings and Alexander Vik [2023] EWCA Civ 191
Andrews LJ confirmed that a defendant always has a right of appeal against findings of contempt even if sentence is delivered later, without requiring permission.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning unfolded in two main strands:

Lack of Precision in the Injunction:
The injunction simply cross-referred to section 2(11) of the tenancy agreement without specifying the scope or manner of access. Tenants had to jump from the order back to the contract’s definition of “your home” and decide for themselves whether outbuildings and kennels counted. Nor did the order explain what “reasonable access” meant in practice, especially when the tenants proposed alternative measures such as video surveys and PPE. The absence of precision rendered the order unfit for committal enforcement.
Failure to Make Individual Findings:
Even if the injunction had been clear, the judge erred by delivering only a global finding of contempt and appending a schedule of ten breaches—without analyzing each alleged breach against the evidence of what was or was not a reasonable adjustment. By contrast, proper practice requires that each ground of committal be identified, the evidence assessed to criminal standard, and a finding made on each.

Impact

This decision will influence future litigation and injunctive drafting in at least three key areas:

Injunction Drafting: Courts and practitioners must ensure that injunction orders spell out, on their face, the precise acts required or prohibited—particularly when enforcement carries a risk of deprivation of liberty.
Landlord-Tenant Disputes: Landlords seeking compliance with repair and safety inspections will need to negotiate and record in detail the scope, timing, and nature of access, especially when tenants or their households have vulnerabilities or disabilities.
Procedural Fairness: The judgment reinforces the right of litigants (especially unrepresented ones) to know exactly what conduct the court requires, supporting the broader principle that people should not risk imprisonment without unambiguous notice of what is required of them.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Injunction: A court order requiring a person to do (mandatory injunction) or refrain from doing (prohibitory injunction) certain acts. Breach can lead to contempt proceedings.
Contempt of Court: Disobedience of a court order. In civil contexts, it can result in committal (imprisonment), fines or other sanctions to enforce compliance.
Committal Proceedings: A quasi-criminal process where the court determines whether a person has breached an injunction and, if so, whether imprisonment or other sanctions should follow.
Reasonable Adjustments (Equality Act 2010): Modifications or accommodations that a service-provider or landlord must make to avoid disadvantaging a disabled person. Adjustments must be objectively reasonable; a tenant cannot dictate all terms.
Policy, Criterion or Practice (PCP): Under section 20 of the Equality Act, a PCP is an apparently neutral rule or procedure that places disabled persons at a disadvantage. Adjustments may be required to remove that disadvantage.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Connexus Homes Ltd v Weaver reaffirms the foundational principle that injunctions subject to committal must be drafted with precision and clarity. Where obligations are framed too broadly—by cross-reference alone to contractual terms without detailed definition—tenants cannot know what is required of them and risk unjust imprisonment. The ruling underscores that, prior to committing anyone to prison for contempt, the court must be satisfied both that the order is clear on its face and that each alleged breach is proved in detail. This judgment will guide judges and practitioners in crafting and enforcing injunctive relief, ensuring the fairness and certainty essential to civil justice.