Connexus Homes Ltd v Weaver & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a suspended committal order made by Judge Ralton on 23 September 2024 following findings of contempt of court against the Appellants for breaches of an injunction related to access to a rented property. The Appellants, tenants of Company A since 2009, live with their adult disabled daughter, for whom they are full-time carers. The injunction required them to allow Company A reasonable access to the Property, including the house, garden, and outbuildings, for safety inspections and repairs.

Company A had repeatedly attempted since July 2022 to conduct statutory electrical and safety inspections but were initially denied access, with only partial access granted later. The Appellants’ objections mainly stemmed from concerns about their daughter’s distress and fears about contamination risks to her support dogs kept in kennels on the Property. Company A obtained a court injunction in September 2023 compelling compliance with the tenancy agreement’s access provisions.

Despite various attempts and adjustments by Company A—including offering PPE, disinfectants, and alternative arrangements—the Appellants continued to limit access, particularly to the outbuildings and kennels. Company A initiated enforcement proceedings citing multiple breaches of the injunction. The committal hearing in June 2024 found the Appellants in breach of the injunction, but the sentencing was adjourned. In September 2024, the Appellants were sentenced to a suspended prison term contingent on compliance, and the order was stayed pending appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the injunction requiring the Appellants to permit reasonable access to the Property was sufficiently clear and precise to support a committal order for contempt of court.
2. Whether the Appellants breached the injunction by failing to provide reasonable access as required under the tenancy agreement.
3. Whether the Appellants’ daughter was discriminated against due to a failure by Company A to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
4. Whether the Appellants’ solicitor failed to properly present evidence, affecting the fairness of the proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The injunction was too broad and lacked sufficient clarity and precision, making it unclear what constituted reasonable access.
• The adjustments they proposed, including limiting physical access, requiring PPE, and providing video inspections, were reasonable accommodations under the Equality Act 2010 to protect their disabled daughter.
• The solicitor did not make all relevant evidence available, impairing their ability to challenge the breaches effectively.
• They denied breaching the tenancy terms, asserting that their offers of access complied with the injunction and tenancy agreement.

Company A's Arguments

• The injunction, though broad, incorporated the tenancy agreement which clearly required reasonable access to the entire Property, including outbuildings.
• Each refusal of access constituted a separate breach of the injunction.
• They had made extensive reasonable adjustments to accommodate the Appellants’ concerns, including PPE provision, scheduling flexibility, and financial support for disinfectants and dog kenneling.
• The solicitor’s conduct did not prejudice the proceedings, and the evidence concerning neighbour disputes was properly excluded as irrelevant.
• The Appellants’ proposed video inspections were insufficient to meet statutory inspection requirements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by emphasizing the fundamental legal principle that injunctions enforced by committal must be clear, certain, and unambiguous, citing longstanding authority. The injunction in question was broadly framed, referring only to compliance with the tenancy agreement without explicitly defining the scope of "reasonable access" or detailing the areas covered, such as outbuildings and kennels. This lack of clarity imposed an unfair burden on the Appellants, who were unrepresented at critical hearings, to interpret their obligations by cross-referencing the tenancy agreement.

The court found that the judge below erred by relying solely on the tenancy agreement’s terms to supply the necessary precision for the injunction. Moreover, the judge failed to assess each alleged breach individually against the evidence, instead making a global finding of contempt without detailed findings on whether the adjustments proposed by the Appellants were objectively reasonable in each instance.

Regarding the Equality Act 2010 claim, the court acknowledged the duty to make reasonable adjustments but found no evidence of a policy, criterion, or practice by Company A that placed the Appellants’ daughter at a substantial disadvantage. The adjustments made by Company A were deemed reasonable, and the proposed video inspections were insufficient for statutory safety requirements.

The complaint about the solicitor’s conduct was dismissed as lacking merit, with no evidence of prejudice to the Appellants’ case.

In sum, the court concluded that the injunction’s imprecision rendered the committal order unsustainable and that the findings of contempt and the suspended sentence could not stand.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal, setting aside the findings of contempt and the suspended prison sentence imposed on the Appellants.

The direct effect is that the Appellants will not serve the suspended sentence, and the committal order is quashed. The decision underscores the critical importance of precision and clarity in injunctions, especially where non-compliance may lead to imprisonment. While no new precedent was established, the ruling reinforces established principles requiring courts to ensure injunctions are clearly defined and that findings of contempt are supported by detailed, case-specific analysis. The case also highlights the necessity of clear procedural safeguards for unrepresented litigants facing serious sanctions.