Connexus Homes Ltd v Belinda Weaver & Anor

An injunction cannot be enforced by committal unless its terms are clear, certain and unambiguous. A general order requiring compliance with a contractual obligation to permit reasonable access may be insufficient where it leaves the scope of access or the standard of reasonableness uncertain, particularly where breach may lead to imprisonment. Each alleged breach must also be considered separately against the evidence and proved to the criminal standard. Under Equality Act 2010, s 20(3), the reasonable-adjustments duty is objective and does not require acceptance of every proposed adjustment. It did not require video evidence instead of personal inspection where inspection was needed to discharge statutory duties.

The appellants were tenants whose tenancy required them to permit reasonable access to their home, defined to include the garden and outbuildings. Their adult daughter, who was severely autistic, lived with them and they were her full-time carers. After repeated disputes over inspections, including access to kennels, the County Court found nine breaches of an injunction requiring compliance with the tenancy obligation.

At sentencing, the tenants received suspended terms of imprisonment of 14 days, with seven days applicable to each tenant. They appealed against the contempt findings and sentence, arguing that the injunction was unclear, relevant evidence had not been adduced, and the landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The central issues were whether the injunction was sufficiently precise for committal and whether the proposed adjustments, including video inspection, satisfied the statutory duty.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The findings of contempt and the suspended terms of imprisonment were set aside.
2. Precision of the injunction. The authorities establish that an order enforceable by committal must state clearly, certainly and unambiguously what the person affected must do or refrain from doing: Low v Innes (1864) 4 DeGJ&S 286, Phonographic Performance Ltd v Tsang (1985) LS Gaz 2331 and Harris v Harris [2001] 2 FLR 895. The requirement is especially important because breach of an order may result in imprisonment.
3. The injunction merely required compliance with section 2 paragraph 11 of the tenancy agreement. It did not itself identify the full scope of the defined term home, including the outbuildings, or explain what amounted to reasonable access. The tenants therefore had to cross-refer to the contract and decide for themselves whether proposed access was reasonable. The contract could not cure the lack of precision. Having recognised the ambiguity, the judge should have dismissed the committal application.
4. Individual breaches. Even if the injunction had been enforceable, the judge erred by making a global finding rather than considering each alleged breach separately by reference to the evidence and the criminal standard of proof. The discipline of setting out and determining each ground was emphasised in Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co v Sage [2017] EWCA Civ 973.
5. Reasonable adjustments. Ground 3 was dismissed. Section 20(3) of the Equality Act 2010 requires a relevant provision, criterion or practice causing substantial disadvantage to a disabled person, and requires objectively reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. It was unclear whether Connexus had adopted such a practice; conduct imposed by law would not ordinarily be its own practice, although a statutory discretion might permit one. The duty was not an absolute entitlement to the adjustment sought. Video evidence did not suffice in circumstances where personal inspection was required, including to satisfy statutory duties.
6. The court observed that the required scope of reasonable access should have been determined and recorded clearly when the injunction was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the County Court, the appeal was allowed and the contempt findings and suspended imprisonment were set aside: [2025] EWCA Civ 655.
• County Court at Bristol: On 28 June 2024, the court found nine breaches of the injunction. On 23 September 2024, it imposed suspended terms of imprisonment totalling 14 days, with seven days applicable to each tenant.
• High Court at Bristol: On 2 October 2024, an application for permission to appeal was dismissed because jurisdiction lay with the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal recorded that this decision was erroneous.