Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd [1971] Ch 233
Facts
Hounslow council engaged Twickenham Garden Developments to carry out building works on council land. The contract allowed determination following the architect's notice of specified defaults and a period for remedying them. The council claimed that the contractual procedure had been followed and that the builder's employment and permission to occupy had ended. The builder disputed the effectiveness of determination and resisted leaving the site. The council applied for an interlocutory mandatory injunction to obtain possession. The application required consideration of the builder's contractual licence, the termination mechanism and the strength of the case for immediate relief.
Legal Issue
Could the council obtain an interlocutory mandatory injunction removing a builder whose contractual right to occupy the site and alleged termination remained disputed?
Held
The court refused the council's application for an interlocutory mandatory injunction removing the builder. The builder's permission to occupy the site arose from the construction contract, so the council could not simply assume an unrestricted power to revoke it while the contractual right continued. Whether the contract had validly been determined was material to possession. On the disputed material before the court, the council had not established the clear entitlement needed for the interim order it sought. The architect's contractual certification role was not equated with a public tribunal governed by a general hearing requirement. The refusal of interim relief did not finally determine every dispute about performance or the effectiveness of termination.
⭐ Legal Principle
A licence to occupy land granted as part of a contract must be considered with the contractual rights governing its duration and termination. An interlocutory mandatory injunction requires a sufficiently clear basis for compelling the proposed change before final determination of disputed rights.
Significance
Hounslow connects contractual termination with occupation of a construction site. It prevents ownership of the land from being treated as a complete answer to contractual rights of access and occupation. The procedural setting matters: refusing an interim mandatory order is different from a final declaration that the builder can remain indefinitely. Use the case to identify the source of the licence, the contractual termination mechanism and the standard for interim relief, without importing public-law procedure automatically into an architect's private contractual function.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the building contract matter to possession?
The builder occupied under rights granted for carrying out the works. The council's ownership did not by itself answer whether those contractual rights had ended. Its entitlement to remove the builder therefore depended on the contract and the effectiveness of the attempted termination.
Did refusal of the injunction finally decide the termination dispute?
No. The application sought an interlocutory mandatory order, which would compel a change before trial. The court's unwillingness to grant that relief on disputed material was not a final resolution of every contractual allegation. The procedural posture limits how broadly the result can be stated.
Was the architect required to conduct a public-law hearing?
The architect was performing a function under the parties' contract. That role was not automatically equivalent to a judicial or public decision-making process with a general hearing requirement. The contract, the nature of the certification task and any applicable duties had to be examined on their own terms.