Connexus Homes Ltd v Belinda Weaver & Anor

This Court allowed the appeal against findings of contempt and a suspended committal sentence because the injunction relied on was not expressed with the requisite clarity and precision to support committal. The Court held that an injunction which simply cross-refers to the tenancy agreement and uses the phrase "reasonable access" left room for ambiguity; the judge below therefore erred in proceeding to a committal without dismissing the application for want of sufficient certainty. The judge also erred in failing to make discrete findings on each alleged breach. The complaint about the defendants' solicitor was rejected as having no merit and the Equality Act 2010 argument was dismissed on the facts: the landlord had made reasonable adjustments and personal inspection remained reasonable and necessary to fulfil statutory and safety duties.

Background and procedural posture:

• Connexus, a social landlord, obtained on 5 September 2023 an injunction requiring the Weavers to comply with paragraph 11 of their tenancy agreement (which required them to allow reasonable access to inspect and carry out repairs to the home, defined to include outbuildings). The injunction ran until 5 September 2025.
• Connexus alleged repeated refusals of access for safety inspections and enforcement proceedings followed. A committal hearing was heard on 28 June 2024 (findings of contempt), and a sentencing hearing on 23 September 2024 resulted in a suspended imprisonment order (14 days, each to serve 7 days, suspended for 12 months). The Weavers appealed to the Court of Appeal against both the findings and the suspended sentence.

Nature of the appeal and issues before the Court:

• The appeal challenged (i) whether the Weavers had breached the injunction (whether they denied "reasonable access"), (ii) the adequacy and clarity of the injunction itself for the purposes of committal, (iii) alleged inadequate conduct by the Weavers' solicitor, and (iv) whether Connexus had failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• Clarity of injunction: the Court emphasised established authorities that an injunction must be clear, certain and unambiguous before it can be enforced by committal. The form of the injunction here was broad and left the defendants having to cross-refer to definitions in the tenancy agreement to understand its scope (for example, whether outbuildings were included). Because of that ambiguity, the injunction could not lawfully form the basis for committal and the judge should have dismissed the application to commit.
• Individual findings: even if the injunction had been sufficiently certain, the judge below should have addressed each alleged breach individually and made findings against the criminal standard rather than making a global finding; his failure to do so was a further error.
• Solicitor complaint: the allegation that the Weavers' solicitor mismanaged documents or withheld evidence was rejected. The Court accepted the solicitor’s explanation that the contested material was irrelevant to access issues and that any misnumbering did not prejudice the cross-examination materially.
• Equality Act 2010: the Court rejected the argument that the Weavers’ proposed measures (for example, video inspections or excluding outbuildings) automatically constituted reasonable adjustments. Section 20 imposes an objective duty to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial disadvantage; Connexus had made extensive adjustments and personal inspection remained reasonable and necessary to meet statutory and safety obligations. The Equality Act ground therefore failed on the facts.

Result: the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the findings of contempt and the suspended sentences, and refused the application to adduce unrelated fresh evidence. The Court observed that a more precise injunction at the outset would have avoided protracted litigation.

Appeal allowed. The Court held that the committal could not stand because the injunction relied upon was not expressed with sufficient clarity and certainty to permit committal and because the judge below failed to make individual findings on each alleged breach; accordingly the findings of contempt and the suspended sentences were set aside. The Court also rejected complaints about the defendants' solicitor and dismissed the Equality Act 2010 argument on the facts.

On appeal from a committal order made by His Honour Judge Ralton at the County Court at Bristol following findings of contempt made on 28 June 2024 and a suspended sentence imposed on 23 September 2024. An interlocutory application for permission to appeal was dismissed by HHJ Blohm KC on 2 October 2024 (that dismissal was treated as erroneous by the Court of Appeal). The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, with judgment delivered 20 May 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 655).