JKMK Consultancy Ltd v Goldie Properties Ltd, QBD, 18 December 2017 (Note on lawtel, otherwise unreported)
The run up to Christmas in any housing practice is usually awash with interim injunction threats and preparation. Lack of heating, hot water, electricity, toilets free of back surges, ceilings… That kind of thing. But here is an interim injunction case that falls into the ‘this is very dodgy, don’t do this’ category. And yes, it perhaps inevitably involves short let/airbnb use.
This was Goldie Properties’ application for discharge of a without notice interim injunction permitting JKMK to return to a property. Goldie had let the property to JKMK on a tenancy agreement allowing a permitted occupant (presumably a company let). Notice to Quit was served in August 2017. In September 2017 JKMK applied for the without notice injunction for re-entry on evidence from JKMK’s sole director/shareholder that the eviction was unlawful, the notice to quit not properly served, JKMK was not in rent arrears and the permitted occupant had been forced to stay in a hotel. There was the usual cross undertaking by JKMK as to damages.
The interim injunction order provided for a return date on 28 November 2017, or until further order, with liberty to apply to vary or discharge,
After the grant of interim junction order, JKMK’s solicitors came off the record. JKMK did nothing about seeking a listing for a return date.
Goldie found that JKMK were advertising the property on short let sites, and there was evidence from other residents of various people coming and going. The locks had apparently been changed. Further, there were doubts as to JKMK’s evidence on its liquidity in relation to the cross undertaking in damages, and inaccurate evidence about there being no rent arrears.
Goldie applied to discharge the interim injunction. The court held that JKMK had failed to give the full information properly required for an interim injunction. JKMK had not turned up to the hearing or filed a response, despite notice. The evidence on short let use was strong, JKMK had misrepresented the position on arrears and there was no adequate explanation of how JKMK could make good the cross-undertaking in damages.
The interim injunction order had apparently lapsed on 28 November, as there was no further order, but in any event the injunction should be discharged. Trial on the remaining issues was appropriate, but in the county court given the sums involved, but a date set by which JKMK had to continue the claim, otherwise it would be dismissed.
Comment
As there is an apparent potential claim (although maybe not a good one) still to play out, I will not comment further, other than to note that a) JKMK is in compulsory liquidation, and b) the sole director/shareholder of JKMK is Mohammed Rasool. And that the findings on short let use show an all too common pattern of grabbing the money in breach of agreement.