Thomas Leveritt v London Borough of Hackney

An extension of time to comply with an injunction should not ordinarily be granted where the alleged inability to comply results from the respondent’s own delay or a failure to provide a satisfactory account of the work undertaken. The court must assess the evidence, the chronology and the circumstances in which the application was made. An urgent application made shortly before expiry of the deadline, following a leisurely approach to compliance, may properly be refused even where the other party suffers little prejudice. The court may decline to pre-empt a later hearing at which the substantive extension application will be determined.

The claimant pursued disrepair proceedings against the defendant local authority in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. On 14 March 2025, District Judge Beecham ordered specified works to the claimant’s long-leased property, with some works required by 31 May 2025 and others by 30 June 2025. The order contained a penal notice identifying the defendant’s chief executive.

The defendant applied urgently for an extension or variation of the 31 May deadline after discovering that defective brickwork required additional work. The application was heard in the High Court because the County Court could not hear it before the deadline. The central issue was whether an immediate extension should be granted on the evidence available.

1. Jurisdiction. The High Court had jurisdiction to grant an extension in respect of the impending deadline. The proceedings were transferred to the High Court for that purpose and were to be transferred back to the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court after the order was made. The defendant undertook to issue the application on the following Monday so that the order could be sealed.
2. Evidence and delay. The defendant’s evidence did not clearly establish what work had been done or when. Its witness statement dealt with the issue perfunctorily, and the supporting email largely identified documents rather than completed work. There was no evidence of progress after 15 April 2025.
3. Responsibility for non-compliance. The court considered that the evidence was consistent with very little work having been done until the last two weeks before the deadline. A party given three months to complete works could expect little sympathy if it commenced the works in earnest only two weeks before the relevant hearing and then encountered difficulties.
4. Urgency and discretion. The defendant had adopted a leisurely approach after the problem was identified on 16 May 2025 and made the application at the eleventh hour. Although the claimant accepted that an extension would cause little prejudice, granting it immediately would risk whitewashing a failure caused by the defendant’s own conduct.
5. Disposition. The court declined to grant an extension that day and refused to pre-empt the County Court’s determination on 10 June. The defendant was directed to pursue the application already issued there. The parties were heard on arrangements to ensure that no contempt proceedings were brought before that application was determined.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. On 14 March 2025 District Judge Beecham ordered the defendant to carry out specified works. The present High Court hearing concerned the defendant’s urgent application for an extension of the first deadline. The substantive application was to be considered by the County Court on 10 June 2025.