The Court of Appeal in Connexus Homes Limited v Weaver and Anr [2025], decided an appeal from an access injunction, contempt of court finding, reinforcing the requirement for clear, certain and unambiguous language to be used in an injunction. This case also considered what could equate to a ‘reasonable adjustment’. 

Background 

Mr & Mrs Weaver were the assured tenants of Connexus Homes Limited. Their tenancy started in 2009. Their property consisted of a house and a large garden. Within the garden, the Weavers had erected a large number of outbuildings to house numerous dogs for their daughter, who has significant health issues. 

The Weavers failed to permit access to Connexus for the purposes of the 5-year electrical property inspection. After extensive efforts, Connexus then applied for an access injunction, having drafted the claim in-house as many landlords do. An access injunction was duly granted on 5 September 2023. The terms of the Injunction granted were amended and simplified by the District Judge in an attempt to help the Weavers' understanding of the term, and as a result, made reference to the separate tenancy agreement. 

Despite the access injunction, the Weavers continued to restrict access to the property. Connexus were requested by the Weavers to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ with respect to access. These requests included, but were not limited to, wearing full PPE, purchasing disinfectants, only accessing certain areas of the property (and still excluding access to the outbuildings) and walking around the property in a pre-arranged path. It was the Weaver’s position that videos of the garden and kennels should be sufficient as a ‘reasonable adjustment’. 

To attempt to facilitate access, Connexus agreed to wear PPE, offered tokens to allow the Weavers to purchase disinfectant and went so far as to offer to pay for their daughter to go out for the day. Connexus were still unable to obtain full access to the property. 

As a result, in December 2023, Connexus issued proceedings for contempt of court, relying on a total of eight breaches. The Weavers continued to deny access, resulting in an additional two further breaches being added to the application. On 28 June 2024, a Circuit Judge found that the Weavers had breached the terms of the Injunction Order on a total of nine occasions. The Weavers were given suspended sentences. The Weavers appealed these findings, and the Court of Appeal handed down judgment on 20 May 2025, which can be found here.

Court of Appeal 

The main issues before the Court of Appeal related to whether: 

1. the findings of contempt were wrongly concluded?
2. the terms of the Injunction Order were clear and precise? 
3. Connexus had failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010?

Outcome 

The main finding of the Court of Appeal was that, as the wording of the injunction term referred to a term within the separate Tenancy agreement document, it was not ‘clear, certain and unambiguous’. This was due to the fact that, to comply with the Injunction, the Weavers would need to refer to their tenancy agreement and follow the specified clause to find the definition of ‘your home’, to understand that the outbuildings were included within this definition. This need to cross-reference between documents left ambiguity and lacked specificity. 

The Judge at the original Injunction hearing in 2023, although apparently attempting to assist the Weavers by amending the terms, in fact created ambiguity that was then unenforceable.  

The Court of Appeal, in their decision, praised Connexus as they had ‘bent over backwards to make allowances to Mr & Mrs Weaver’ by offering extensive adjustments. These included wearing full PPE, which was plainly not required, providing money for disinfectant/PPE, offering to pay for the daughter to be taken out for the day when access was provided and offering to pay to house the dogs in kennels for the day – to name but a few. 

The Court of Appeal found that Connexus couldn’t have made any more effort to accommodate the Weavers' requests, which were deemed ‘undoubtedly unreasonable’. 

Conclusion 

The Court of Appeal praised Connexus’ approach and efforts, but ultimately the Appeal succeeded on the basis that the wording of the amended Injunction left room for ambiguity. Without this ambiguity, the only issue remaining on appeal would have been the issue of ‘reasonable adjustments’, and that ground of appeal was dismissed. 

No order for costs was made.

Action points to note:

• This case reinforces the importance of clear, certain and unambiguous wording in an injunction. 
• Avoid cross-references to separate documents 
• If it is helpful for draft terms which reference tenancy agreement provisions, ensure all relevant wording is included on the face of the injunction order. 
• Making requests for wholly unreasonable adjustments as a condition of access is not justifiable. 

Mollie McQuade, Solicitor and others at Anthony Collins acted for Connexus. 

Counsel Michael Singleton of St Ives Chambers appeared for Connexus in the Court of Appeal.