Trustee of the House of Leigh Trust (Tobe Hayden Leigh, Beneficiary) v Bank of Scotland PLC

An urgent without-notice injunction should not be granted to restrain enforcement action where the affected claimant has received notice of the enforcement documents and has been given no opportunity to respond, absent a proper and compelling reason for proceeding without notice. Challenges to enforcement documents and related procedural rights should ordinarily be raised promptly in the proceedings in which they arise. Rights of access to court records, although important, do not by themselves justify an injunction concerning the sale, transfer, disposal or repossession of property.

The claimant sought a without-notice injunction against Bank of Scotland PLC to restrain action concerning two properties, following eviction steps at one property and threatened repossession of the other. The application challenged the validity of two writs of possession and control issued after judgment or an order in Bank of Scotland’s favour, and raised alleged denial of access to court records, constitutional principles and human rights.

The court considered whether urgent injunctive relief could properly be granted without notice to the bank, whether the alleged defects provided a viable legal challenge, and whether access rights relating to court records supported the orders sought.

1. Application dismissed. The court would not grant a without-notice injunction impeding enforcement of writs of possession which had been received by the applicant months earlier. Bank of Scotland was the known claimant in the underlying proceedings and its solicitors were known. There was no good reason to proceed unilaterally, particularly when the bank should have the opportunity to provide its perspective.
2. Any future application concerning the properties or the writs must give proper notice to Bank of Scotland and communicate with its known solicitors. The urgency arising from the recent eviction did not outweigh the earlier knowledge of the writs and the alleged deficiencies appearing on their face.
3. The points advanced disclosed no viable basis for legal challenge. More importantly, no reason was shown why such a challenge could not have been made in the proceedings that produced the writs. Procedural rights should be exercised promptly in the proceedings in which they arise. A person receiving enforcement documents cannot simply wait and then commence fresh proceedings seeking injunctive relief.
4. The court recognised important rights under the Civil Procedure Rules to access documents from court records, together with certain access rights and remedies arising from open justice. Those rights remained available to the claimant, but they did not provide a basis for the property-related injunctions sought on the without-notice application.