Heshom Adamir v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

A pre-issue mandatory injunction requires a high degree of assurance that the proposed claim will succeed. A claimant alleging misfeasance in public office must show targeted or untargeted malice and material damage caused by the relevant conduct. Alleged administrative errors, inconsistent dates or carelessness do not, without evidence of dishonesty or knowing or reckless excess of power, establish that tort.

Pre-action disclosure requires satisfaction of the statutory criteria and remains discretionary. It is not a means of obtaining wide-ranging material to prove a case at trial, particularly where the proposed claim is weak or speculative and the claimant can formulate it without the documents. An interim payment or relief in separate concluded proceedings will likewise not be granted on an unpleaded and weak claim.

Mr Adamir applied before issuing his proposed damages claim against the respondent for urgent interim relief. He sought accommodation, a stay of a costs order made in earlier Administrative Court proceedings, disclosure of documents, and an interim payment of £60,000.

The proposed claim alleged misfeasance in public office, fraud on the court, breach of statutory duty under the Housing Act 1996, discrimination, breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and breach of the EU Withdrawal Agreement. The application relied principally on three documents said to demonstrate fraud in the handling of his homelessness application.

The central issues were whether the applicant had a sufficiently strong case for a pre-issue mandatory injunction, whether pre-action disclosure was justified under CPR 31.16, and whether any basis existed for the other forms of interim relief.

1. Interim mandatory injunction. The court applied the principles in American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396. Because mandatory relief was sought, the applicant had to establish a high degree of assurance that the proposed claim would succeed, applying Eeles v Cobham Hire Services Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 204. He failed to establish even a serious issue to be tried, so the court did not consider the balance of convenience.
2. Misfeasance in public office. Applying Three River District Council v Governor of the Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1, the tort may arise through targeted malice, involving an improper motive, or untargeted malice, involving knowledge of lack of power or reckless indifference to that, together with knowledge or reckless indifference that the conduct would probably injure the claimant. Material damage caused by the conduct is also required.
3. The three documents relied upon did not provide the necessary assurance. The Home Office material was incomplete and could be consistent with a legitimate eligibility decision or genuine confusion. The internal email was naturally read as proposing that assistance should be provided, not that assistance should be falsely represented. The later priority-need decision was not shown to be fabricated and was consistent with the chronology.
4. Errors in dates, an inaccurate statement about medical evidence and criticisms of the respondent’s discharge of housing duties did not support dishonesty or misfeasance. Matters that had been or could have been raised in the concluded judicial review proceedings could not be relitigated through this civil injunction application.
5. Pre-action disclosure. The court treated the document request as an application under CPR 31.16. Even assuming the first three threshold criteria were satisfied, the applicant failed to show that disclosure was desirable to dispose of the anticipated proceedings fairly, assist settlement or save costs. The request was also an uncircumscribed fishing expedition. The application was refused.
6. The requests for a stay of the earlier costs order and for an interim payment were also refused. The application was refused in its entirety.