The recent case of Connexus Homes Ltd v Weaver [2025] EWCA Civ 655 has emphasised the need for the wording of injunctions to be “clear, certain and unambiguous”.
The case
Mr and Mrs Weaver (hereafter “the Weavers”) were tenants of Connexus Homes Ltd (hereafter “Connexus”) at a property in Goodrich, Ross-on-Wye. The property in question was a house and a garden. The Weavers resided there with T, their daughter, who was severely autistic and the Weavers themselves also had health difficulties. Within the garden of the property “outbuildings” had been installed by the Weavers to enable T to keep six “support dogs”.
Connexus repeatedly sought access to the property in order to comply with their statutory obligations to inspect the electrical wiring in the property, to investigate concerns about the electrical safety of the outbuildings and to investigate concerns about an accumulated amount of waste.
Chronology
The Weavers initially denied Connexus access to the property entirely although the primary issue subsequently became Connexus accessing the outbuildings due to T’s concerns about infections impacting her dogs and a belief, incorrect as it were, that Connexus had no right to inspect the outbuildings.
Given the continued failure to provide access, Connexus sought an access injunction which came before the court in September 2023. The Weavers did not attend and an order was granted. The district judge whom the hearing was before decided to “simplify” the injunction, to enable the Weavers to understand it. The court ordered that the Weavers “must comply with section 2 paragraph 11 of their tenancy agreement dated 6 April 2009.” Section 2 paragraph 11 of the tenancy agreement was the access provision which was a fairly standard obligation on the Weavers to permit access upon a minimum of 24 hours’ notice. The important aspect of the clause however, for the purposes of the injunction, was that access was to be permitted to “your home” which was separately defined in the tenancy agreement as including “any garden, garage, outbuilding, fence or wall let with the property…”.
Following the court initially making the injunction, the Weavers offered to provide videos of the outbuildings, as a substitute for access, and continued to fail to provide access. The Weavers, via a representative, did subsequently agree to provide access if three “requirements” were met, namely:
- There would be no access to the garden or outbuildings;
- Anybody attending would wear PPE;
- It would be accepted that the Weavers had covid-19.
Connexus undertook proportionality assessments and considered their Public Sector Equality Act duty but ultimately determined that they would have to pursue the Weavers for a breach of the injunction.
Connexus continued to try to gain access to the property amicably and progress was made with access being obtained to the property and part of the gardens but, crucially, still not the outbuildings.
At the committal hearing in June 2024, the judge found that the Weavers had breached the injunction order and in September 2024 they were sentenced to 14 days in prison, each serving seven days at separate times so as not to impact T, suspended for 12 months on condition that they provide access in accordance with the injunction.
The appeal
The Weavers appealed the decision on three grounds:
- They believed the judge had incorrectly decided that they had not provided reasonable access;
- The Weavers’ solicitor had not made evidence available to the court;
- T was being discriminated against owing to Connexus’ alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Ground 2
Ground 2 of the appeal was dismissed as not having any merit for the basis of an appeal.
Ground 3
Ground 3 was dismissed on the basis that Connexus had made reasonable adjustments in attempting to access the property.
Ground 1
The key issue, and what was at the heart of the ongoing dispute between Connexus and the Weavers, was what constituted reasonable access. The judge hearing the appeal considered the established authorities, particularly Low v Innes (1864), Phonographic Performance Ltd v Tsang (1985) and, most recently, Harris v Harris [2001} which provides that “no order will be enforced by committal unless it is expressed in clear, certain and unambiguous language…”
The judge held that the terms of the injunction “left room for any amount of ambiguity” as it required the Weavers to cross reference from section 11 of the tenancy agreement to the definitions and provided no clarity as to what “reasonable access” was, with the Weavers believing that is what they were offering.
The appeal against committal was therefore allowed on the basis that the injunction wording was not clear, certain or unambiguous.
Conclusion
The case highlights the importance of ensuring that any injunction terms are clear, certain and unambiguous at the outset with specific terms and requirements set out in detail in the injunction itself rather than by reference to a separate document.
The court accepted that Connexus had “bent over backwards” to make allowances to the Weavers with contractors wearing PPE unnecessarily, providing money and vouchers to the value of £150 to the Weavers for disinfectant (given their concerns), providing skips, offering for T to have a trip out for the day and offering for the dogs to stay in kennels.
The court also felt that, even faced with the prospect of committal, the Weavers were likely to remain adamant that they would not be providing access.
Despite the above, the lack of clarity of the wording of the injunction was sufficient to prevent committal being pursued.
