Without notice injunction to re-enter obtained with marked lack of disclosure

In Rasool v Paddington Company One Ltd [2021] EWHC 3633, the court discovered that Mr Rasool had made multiple applications for injunctions for re-entry to numerous properties, each of which he said was his home from which he had been unlawfully evicted. At the conclusion the court gave permission to the respondent to apply for a civil restraint order and also suggested that committal proceedings be considered. Paddington Company One Ltd (PCOL) was the landlord of 406 Betula House, Paddington Gardens, North Wharf Road W2 1DT (the property). In December 2019, it had let the property to Rami News Ltd under a written tenancy which had expired in December 2020. As far as it was aware, since that time the property had been empty. However, on 29 November 2021, Mr Rasool made an out-of-hours application for a without notice injunction alleging that he had occupied the property for at least two years and that he had been unlawfully evicted from it. His application was supported by an unsigned, undated particulars of claim. There was no correspondence concerning the alleged unlawful eviction. Based on the papers before him, Julian Knowles J granted the interim injunction. Unfortunately, Mr Rasool had singularly failed to fulfil the duty of giving full and frank disclosure required when seeking a without notice injunction. He did not advise the judge that some two or three weeks previously the court had rejected an attempt to obtain an injunction for re-entry to the property. Further, he made no mention of the fact that he had brought two other sets of proceedings, each alleging unlawful eviction from another property, and that in each of those cases he had alleged occupation at a time when he now alleged that he occupied the property. In fact, these other proceedings only came to light when the court tried to ascertain whether Mr Rasool had issued his claim as he had been directed. He had not. Indeed, by the time of the return date a further previous set of proceedings seeking re-entry following alleged unlawful eviction was discovered in relation to a yet further property. In response to the interim injunction, PCOL issued a possession claim alleging that Mr Rasool was a trespasser. It set out the facts as it understood them, including that Mr Rasool had never had an interest in the property. It exhibited its tenancy with Rami News Ltd. On the return date, Mr Justice Jacobs observed that there was some overlap between the issues which arose on the requests for the injunction and the possession order. The test for the injunction was whether there was a serious issue to be tried; damages must not be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience must favour the grant of the injunction. To make the possession order on the return date under CPR 55.8 the court would have to be satisfied that the claim for possession was not “genuinely disputed on grounds which appear substantial”, a threshold recently considered in Global 100 v Laleva [2021] EWCA Civ 1835; [2022] EGLR 2. As a consequence of the non-disclosure, Mr Justice Jacobs was in no doubt that the injunction should be discharged. Moreover, given the lack of proper documentation, the clear evidence from PCOL and statements made in the prior proceedings concerning Mr Rasool’s occupation at different properties, the judge was persuaded that this was a case in which a possession order should be made. Further, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the judge made an indemnity costs order against Mr Rasool in respect of the injunction and possession claim. He gave permission to PCOL to apply for a civil restraint order and also invited it to consider whether contempt proceedings should be brought, observing that they are to some extent a more powerful weapon than a CRO. Elizabeth Haggerty is a barrister