London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Kehinde Wilson Gbadegesin & Anor

A local authority may obtain an injunction under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to enforce compliance with housing safety obligations, but the jurisdiction is exceptional and must be exercised with caution.

The authority must show substantially more than a mere breach of criminal law. It must establish conduct affecting the interests of inhabitants, a continuing or likely continuation of the unlawful conduct, and that an injunction is necessary because other measures have proved or will prove ineffective. Persistent non-compliance with improvement notices, continuing serious hazards, convictions and failure to engage may satisfy those requirements.

The claimant local authority sought a final mandatory injunction under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 against the registered leaseholder of a residential property and the managing agent.

The defendants had been served with improvement notices under sections 11 and 12 of the Housing Act 2004 concerning category 1 and category 2 hazards. They did not appeal the notices, failed to complete the remedial works, were convicted of failing to comply, and continued not to remedy the hazards. Neither defendant acknowledged service or attended the Part 8 hearing.

The issues were whether the claim should proceed in their absence, whether minor amendments and hearsay evidence should be admitted, and whether the statutory and common-law conditions for a final injunction were met.

1. Procedural matters. The defendants had been properly served and were plainly aware of the proceedings and hearing. The court therefore proceeded in their absence under CPR 39.3(1). Minor clarifying amendments were permitted under CPR 17.1(2)(b), with service dispensed with under CPR 6.28. Hearsay evidence was admitted after the procedural omission was remedied under CPR 3.10. Its weight was assessed under sections 1(2) and 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995.
2. Applicable injunction principles. Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 permits a final injunction where it is just and convenient. Under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, the local authority must show that proceedings are expedient for protecting or promoting inhabitants’ interests. Applying City of London Corporation v Bovis Construction Ltd [1992] All ER 697, the jurisdiction is exceptional and requires substantially more than a mere infringement of criminal law. The authority must also establish that the unlawful conduct will continue unless restrained and that nothing short of an injunction will be effective.
3. Application. The defendants’ continuing failure to comply with improvement notices, despite convictions and the expiry of the remedial period, amounted to a knowing and flagrant breach. The category 1 hazards created potentially serious consequences for the tenants. The disrepair was also capable of constituting an actionable wrong independently of the criminal law, including breaches connected with the tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4. The criminal penalties had not secured compliance. The defendants’ failure to appeal the notices, participate in the prosecutions or engage meaningfully with the civil proceedings supported the inference that non-compliance would continue and that only an injunction would be effective.
5. The court granted the final mandatory injunction and ordered the defendants to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis. The costs claimed were found proportionate and reasonably incurred.