Ibrahim v London Borough of Haringey & Anor

On an application for interim relief, the court should not resolve critical disputed facts or difficult, fact-sensitive questions of law which may determine the substantive claim. The American Cyanamid approach remains effective notwithstanding the CPR overriding objective. If the court considers making a finding of effectively final effect, it must ensure that the parties understand that possibility and have a fair opportunity to address it. A signed agreement, together with incomplete evidence and a disputed statutory context, may establish a serious issue even where the authority asserts that no legal relationship was intended. Mistake by a local authority does not necessarily prevent a tenancy from arising. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the substantive claim had been dismissed at the interim stage.

The claimant, a rough sleeper, was placed in a self-contained flat after the first defendant intended to provide hotel accommodation. He signed an agreement describing the occupation as temporary accommodation under licence. The claimant alleged that the agreement created a tenancy or licence protected by housing legislation and that an attempted eviction was unlawful.

At an interim injunction hearing, HHJ Saunders discharged an earlier injunction and recited that the parties had entered into no legal relationship. The claimant appealed, contending that the judge had impermissibly determined the substantive claim without a trial. The central issue was whether findings made on the interim application could dispose of the underlying claim.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The part of HHJ Saunders’s order which dismissed the substantive claim was set aside. The claimant did not challenge the discharge of the interim injunction, because accommodation at a Travelodge was available and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.
2. Interim relief. The principle in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd remained effective. On an interim injunction application, the court should not resolve critical disputed facts or difficult points of law, particularly where the legal issue is fact-sensitive or the evidence is incomplete and untested. The CPR overriding objective did not authorise the court to convert the interim hearing into a final determination.
3. If a court considers that findings of effectively final effect may be made on an interim application, it must ensure that the possibility is squarely identified and that the parties have an opportunity to address it. Here, the parties had prepared and argued the hearing as one concerning continuation of interim relief. The order nevertheless treated the substantive claim as finally determined. That was procedurally unfair.
4. The judge was also wrong on the merits. The existence of a signed agreement meant that the first defendant bore the burden of showing that no intention to create legal relations existed. The evidence was materially incomplete, including the absence of expected evidence from the relevant council officer and the claimant. The fact-sensitive and novel circumstances therefore disclosed an arguable case.
5. The authorities concerning mistaken or improperly granted local-authority accommodation, including Akinbolu v Hackney Borough Council and Birmingham City Council v Qasim & Ors, illustrated that a mistake does not necessarily prevent a tenancy from arising once legal relations are intended. The issue whether the accommodation was a dwelling or secure tenancy, and whether the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 applied, also required fuller consideration. R (N) v Lewisham London Borough Council did not justify summary dismissal because the purpose and statutory context of the accommodation were materially arguable.
6. The parties were invited to draw up the necessary order.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): appeal allowed to the extent that the County Court’s dismissal of the substantive claim was set aside. The discharge of the interim injunction was not challenged.
• County Court at Central London: HHJ Saunders dismissed the interim injunction application, discharged the earlier injunction and recited that the parties had entered into no legal relationship.