MOHAMED ALI ABBAS RASOOL v PADDINGTON COMPANY ONE LIMITED

For a possession claim against trespassers under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r.55.8, the court applies a test equivalent to summary judgment. The claim is not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds where the alleged occupier’s case has no realistic prospect of success, even though the court must avoid conducting a mini-trial. The court may analyse evidence and documents where factual assertions lack substance or are contradicted by contemporaneous material. A party seeking a without-notice injunction must make full and frank disclosure of material matters. Material non-disclosure may justify discharging the injunction, particularly where the underlying claim also lacks a serious issue to be tried.

The claimant sought continuation of a without-notice injunction requiring the respondent to restore his access to residential premises. The injunction had been granted by Julian Knowles J, although the claimant had not issued the claim form required by that order.

The respondent brought possession proceedings against the claimant and persons unknown under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 55. The central issues were whether the claimant had made full and frank disclosure when obtaining the injunction and whether the possession claim was genuinely disputed on grounds appearing to be substantial.

1. The without-notice injunction was discharged. The claimant had failed to disclose earlier proceedings concerning the same property, in which Foster J had refused to grant equivalent relief and had raised substantial questions about the factual basis of the claim. He had also failed to disclose other recent proceedings involving materially similar allegations of occupation of different properties during overlapping periods.
2. An applicant for without-notice relief must give full and frank disclosure of matters material to the decision. The undisclosed matters were plainly material. The claimant’s suggestion that the earlier proceedings had become unnecessary because the respondent had agreed to readmit him was unsupported by correspondence or other documentation and was inconsistent with the pleaded case.
3. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 55, r.55.8, the court applied the test identified in Global 100 Ltd v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 183, namely a test equivalent to that for summary judgment. The court had to decide whether the claim was genuinely disputed on grounds appearing to be substantial.
4. Applying the principles in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd, the court considered whether the claimant’s case had a realistic rather than fanciful prospect of success. A realistic case must carry some degree of conviction. The court must not conduct a mini-trial, but it need not accept unsupported factual assertions at face value and may consider contemporaneous documents and evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial.
5. The claimant’s inconsistent accounts, failure to comply with directions to provide evidence, absence of credible evidence of a tenancy with him, and the respondent’s evidence that the tenancy had been granted to a company meant that the claim was not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. A possession order against a trespasser was therefore made.
6. The claimant’s injunction application was treated as totally without merit. The respondent was awarded the costs of both applications on the indemnity basis, with permission to apply in writing regarding quantification.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that Julian Knowles J had granted the without-notice injunction on 29 November 2021 and that Foster J had earlier dismissed an application concerning the same property. The present court discharged the injunction and made a possession order.