ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL
His Honour Judge Ralton
K00GL492
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SINGH
and
LORD JUSTICE NUGEE
____________________
CONNEXUS HOMES Ltd |
Claimant/ Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
(1) BELINDA WEAVER (2) GERALD WEAVER |
Defendants/ Appellants |
____________________
Michael Singleton (instructed by Anthony Collins LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 8 May 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice King:
Introduction
Background
"Access
You must:
i) Allow us, or anyone working for us, including contractors acting on our behalf, reasonable access to all parts of your home. Access will usually be during the daytime, on production of appropriate proof of identity, to inspect the condition of your home or carry out repairs or other works to your home or adjoining Property. We will normally give you a minimum of 24 hours notice that we need access, but we may need immediate access in an emergency; and
ii) Clause (i) applies to inspections, repairs and other works to the installations in your home, such as gas, electricity and water.
iii) Not obstruct access to your home, either directly (for instance by refusing permission or cancelling appointments) or indirectly (for instance by accumulation of furniture, personal effects, stored items or unhygienic conditions)."
"The Court ordered that Gerald Weaver and Belinda Weaver
1. Must comply with Section 2 paragraph 11 of their Tenancy Agreement dated 6 April 2009."
Enforcement Proceedings
The Contempt Hearing
"The first point that Ms Yeung makes is that the injunction order is not closely defined. I rather agree with Ms Yeung about that. It is not an injunction I would choose to make but it does cross refer to the tenancy agreement which is of course a matter of contract between the Claimants and the Defendants. I do not think it can be said it was of insufficient clarity and I do not think Ms Yeung pushes the point too hard, but I would observe given that I know that the Claimant seeks to extend the injunction that my preference would be to see clearly defined injunction orders in the future if that was necessary."
"In regards to breaches 1- 8 they are all very similar. Mrs Weaver sought to blame others for the appointments not taking place. So far as 1 – 8 are concerned, I am afraid I do not accept her evidence save in respect of one breach, number 3 where the appointment was cancelled because of Covid afflicting the family."
"I have listened carefully but have come to the conclusion that I am satisfied those breaches are made out as well. Seven out of the original breaches and breaches nine and ten. That concludes my judgment."
a) On 25 September 2023, by telephone call, the Second Defendant informed the Claimant they could not facilitate an electrical check and Property inspection appointment as pre- arranged by letter dated 18 September 2023. The Defendants requested this appointment be moved to 27 September 2023.
b) On 27 September 2023, the Defendants failed to provide access to the Property. The electrical check and Property inspection appointment had been pre-arranged by a telephone conversation with the Second Defendant on 26 September 2023.
c) On 6 October 2023, by email, the Defendants' representative advised access would only be permitted on 10 October 2023 if three conditions were met.
d) On 9 October 2023, the First Defendant advised the Claimant may only access the interior of the Property in the upcoming electrical check and Property inspection appointment on 10 October 2023. Subsequently, the appointment had to be cancelled by the Claimant, as access to the entirety of the Property was required for the electrical check and Property inspection appointment.
e) On 16 October 2023, by email, the Defendants' representative advised access would only be permitted on 20 October 2023 if the three conditions contained within her email dated 06 October 2023 were met. This electrical check and Property inspection appointment was prearranged by letter dated 13 October 2023. Subsequently, on 19 October 2023, the Claimant was forced to cancel the electrical check and Property inspection appointment as the conditions could not be agreed and access to the entire Property was being denied by the Defendants.
f) On 25 October 2023, the Defendants' representative challenged the Claimant's right to full access of the Property and stated that without the three conditions previously set out being met, access would not be granted.
g) On 7 December 2023, the Defendants wrote to the Claimant's Solicitor that full access to the Property would not be granted on 18 December 2023. Full access had been requested by the Claimant's Solicitor in order for this appointment to take place.
h) On 3 May 2024, the Defendants failed to allow access to the entirety of the Property. The Defendants failed to allow the Claimant access to the rear garden of the Property for the purposes of inspection.
i) On 8 May 2024, the Defendants failed to allow access to the entirety of the Property. The Defendants have failed to do so by refusing the Claimant access to the various outbuildings contained within the rear garden of the Property for the purposes of inspection.
The Sentencing Hearing
"[39] I agree with the provisional views expressed by Lady Justice Simler and Lord Justice Nugee. In a case where for convenience the issue of contempt is dealt with in two stages and an order making a finding of contempt is later followed by committal to prison (including a suspended sentence), the defendant has a right of appeal against the order for committal and no permission is required. The grounds of appeal in such a case are not limited to a contention that the sentence was too severe, but may include a contention that the finding of contempt was wrongly made. Either ground, if made out, means that the defendant should not have been committed.
[40]……..To hold that, merely because the issue of contempt and the issue of sanction are separated in time, a defendant loses the right to challenge the finding of contempt would frustrate the legislative intention. It should make no difference whether the finding of contempt and sentence are all dealt with in one hearing, one judgment and one order, or, for what are purely practical reasons, are split into two hearings, two judgments and two orders."
The extension of the Injunction
"5. Care of Your Home
You must:
(i) Keep your home in a clean and tidy condition … in particular:
- You must not place any item or items or allow any item to be placed in such a position (either inside or outside your home) so that access to or from your home or to and from any neighbouring Property or land is obstructed;
- You must keep the garden, if you have one, in a tidy condition, free from rubbish and cultivated to a good standard.
9. Rubbish
You must dispose of all rubbish and refuse promptly and properly and not allow rubbish or other waste to accumulate in or around your home."
The Grounds of Appeal
i) The judge wrongly concluded that Mr and Mrs Weaver did not allow Connexus reasonable access to the Property and should not have found them to be in breach of the injunction.
ii) Mr and Mrs Weaver's solicitor did not make all the evidence fully available to the court.
iii) T was discriminated against because Connexus failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
Breach of the September 2023 Injunction
"288. It is an elementary principle of justice and fairness that no order will be enforced by committal unless it is expressed in clear, certain and unambiguous language. So far as this is possible, the person affected should know with complete precision what it is that he is required to do or to abstain from doing."
"I would also add that it is in my view a salutary discipline for any judge who is delivering or writing a judgment on a committal application to set out each relevant ground of committal before proceeding to consider whether it is made out on the evidence to the criminal standard of proof."
Complaint against the Solicitor
The Equality Act 2010
Conclusion
Lord Justice Singh:
Lord Justice Nugee: