Rasool v Paddington Company One Ltd [2021] EWHC 3633 (QB) (17 December 2021)

Rasool v Paddington Company One Ltd [2021] EWHC 3633 (QB) (17 December 2021)

The injunction was discharged and a possession order granted because Mr Rasool failed to make full and frank disclosure of prior relevant proceedings, provided no credible evidence of a tenancy, and his claim was not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. The court found his explanations for inconsistencies in prior proceedings unconvincing and his case as to occupation lacked credibility.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3633
Parties
Claimant/defendant: Mohamed Ali Abbas Rasool; Respondent/claimant: Paddington Company One Limited; Defendants: Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Possession and Injunction Applications / Return Date Hearing on Injunction and Possession Order
Outcome
Injunction discharged; possession order granted against Mr Rasool; costs awarded to Paddington Company One Limited on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Injunctions, Without Notice Applications, Full and Frank Disclosure, Summary Judgment, Trespass, Costs, Civil Restraint Orders, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Property Law Possession Proceedings Injunctions Without Notice Applications Full and Frank Disclosure Summary Judgment Trespass +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Ali Abbas Rasool

Claimant/defendant

Paddington Company One Limited

Respondent/claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Possession and Injunction Applications / Return Date Hearing on Injunction and Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injunction obtained by Mr Rasool should be continued or discharged for non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether Paddington Company One Limited is entitled to a possession order against Mr Rasool as a trespasser
  3. 3 Whether Mr Rasool's claim to tenancy is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged and a possession order granted because Mr Rasool failed to make full and frank disclosure of prior relevant proceedings, provided no credible evidence of a tenancy, and his claim was not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds. The court found his explanations for inconsistencies in prior proceedings unconvincing and his case as to occupation lacked credibility.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; possession order granted against Mr Rasool; costs awarded to Paddington Company One Limited on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Injunction granted to Mr Rasool discharged.
  • Possession order made against Mr Rasool and Persons Unknown as trespassers under CPR Part 55.