c




   

Up until 1997, there was no tort for harassment. Since 1997, the Protection from Harassment Act came into
force. It creates both a civil wrong and a private law action. This act grants a private law remedy. Since it is a
statutory action, it is not strictly speaking a tort, not being a common law wrong. If applied the historic
definition it is a statute wrong than a common law wrong. But as a civil action it is still important in this act.
What is harassment? Section 1 stated:

„
 
  
 
 

   
 
 
  

 


This is an objective test ʹ to interpret what is going on we look towards the reasonable person. The Robin
Hood approach to subjectivity is avoided. There are some exceptions when a course of conduct will not
amount to harassment in section 1 (3). Section 1 (3) states:

    


 


  
   
  





 
(defence in trespass)
  
    
  


 
  


 
  
  
  

 
 

  
 


  
  

Section 1 (1) A was amended. The amendment was introduced after the statute was enacted as there was a
gap. It is now added under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to counteract animal right
extremist. The section provides that:


 
  


 
 




  

 


  
 
  



 

   

 
  

    
   

This seeks to prohibit intimidating conduct which prevents people going on about their lawful business.
Section 1 is for only harassment with one person. Section 1 A deals with harassment with more than one
person extending the scope.

Section 1 (2) further provides that the defendant ought to know that his or her conduct amounts to
harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct
amounted to harassment of the other. This is an objective test. The court will not take account of any mental
disorder from which the defendant is suffering or any other characteristics as this would substantially lessen
the protection given to the victims. Section 1 (2) states:

!"





   
   

 

 
  

 


   

    



Section 3 states you can have an action in private law as well as crime. Section 7 gives us some definition.
The course of conduct has to be on two or more occasions and may include speech. If under section 1 (A)
with two or more people you can harass each of them more than once.
 „
#$
"
„
 %%& 

? ' 
 
  

  Course of conduct͛ is defined in section 7 (3) to
mean conduct at least on two occasions. Section 7
(4) states that conduct can include speech.
!? '   

 
 Section 7 (2) provides that harassment includes
causing alarm or distress. This is a subjective test
based solely on the claimant͛s reaction to the
defendant͛s conduct.
? ' 
 
   Section 12 provides that a person ought to know that
       their conduct would amount to harassment if a

 reasonable person in possession of the same
information would consider that no conducted
amounted to harassment.

Œ
 ŒŒ


FACTS: This case involved a building site. There was a complaint about aggressive behaviour from the
foreman of the building site. The foreman threatened to smash windows. The question is what amounts to
unreasonable conduct? The test the courts have developed as stated by Gage LJ:

  (
 
  
   
  
    
        )
 
* 










 
  
 
+ 
 


, 




  

 
 
 + 
 

  

The test is whether the conduct is of such gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law. The test is
not simply reasonable conduct/ unreasonable conduct. Court limited possibility of the use of the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 in stress cases. Trivial incidents were insufficient to constitute harassment under
the Act. The acts needed to be of such gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law.

è 
 Œ 

FACTS: A customer of British gas kept receiving bill stating she owed money when she did not really. Two
issues:

1.? What is the appropriate level of gravity͛ for conduct to constitute harassment?
2.? Can companies be liable under the 1997 Act?

British Gas argued this was perfectly legitimate. In defence, British Gas argued that the conduct in question
was not enough to amount to harassment. (To amount to harassment, the course of conduct has to be
serious. Otherwise, merely annoying or aggravating matters of everyday life would be criminalised, which
was not the intention of Parliament). Furthermore the claimant knew that the claims and threats were
unjustified. The Claimant also knew that the correspondence was computer generated and therefore should
not have been taken as seriously as if the letters had come from an individual. The Claimant had not pleaded
any directing mind on the part of someone with seniority in the company or identified an individual
employee for whose acts the company would be vicariously liable. The Court of Appeal rejected the
argument.
HELD: In principle the appropriate level of severity for the gravity was reached. Ferguson won the case.
Companies can be held legally responsible. They have legal personality.

* 


FACTS: Judy Veakins claimed that she was harassed at work by her supervisor, Jackie Lavy, for whose acts
her employer, Kier Islington Ltd, was vicariously liable. Miss Veakins was employed by Kier as an electrician
from September 2003. In July 2005 Mrs Lavy became her supervisor. Miss Veakins said that she felt that Mrs
Lavy persistently picked on her. She went on sick leave for depression in September 2005. Miss Veakins͛
evidence was not challenged and no evidence was called on behalf of Kier. Section 1(1) of the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997 (which creates a criminal offence and a civil remedy) provides that a person must
not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which he knows or ought to
know amounts to harassment. At first instance Miss Veakins͛ claim was dismissed on the basis that the acts
in question did not amount to harassment.

HELD: Following the decision of the House of Lords in X
†2006] it is necessary to keep in mind that,
to amount to harassment, the conduct in question must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability.
Since Majrowski the courts have been enjoined to consider whether the conduct complained of is
͞oppressive and unacceptable͟ as opposed to merely unattractive, unreasonable or regrettable. The conduct
of Mrs Lavy, which included tearing up, without reading, a letter written by Miss Veakins in which she set out
her concerns, when considered by reference to the test of ͞oppressive and unacceptable͟, would be
sufficient to establish criminal liability. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the
county court for an assessment of damages.

Following X
the key decision was that of the Court of Appeal in 



  

†2007], which made pursuing a successful claim for harassment difficult. It is hard to believe on the facts of
 
that the conduct in question did amount to harassment, albeit that there may be more to the
conduct than is apparent from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.This judgment appears to undermine the
decision in Conn and may make it easier for claimants to pursue harassment claims as the threshold needed
to succeed in these cases seems to have been reduced. However, Lord Justice Maurice Kay emphasised that
͞it should not be thought from this unusually one-sided case that stress at work will often give rise to liability
for harassment.͟ He commented that this case was extraordinary and that he did not expect that many
workplace cases would give rise to this liability.

This did amount and can be harassment. Maurice Kay LJ:

'  

  
   
 
    
    
 
   
  
   
-  
.  
- 
   .
-

 
    

.

 

 -
   
  .

It is parallel with the work of Lord Goff. Maurice Kay LJ as obiter stated:

   
 



  

  
 


      
 "


 
 
        
 
 



ŒŒ

 c


FACTS: This involved a series of allegations of the behaviour of one police detective. The claimants claim was
that his behaviour amounted to harassment. This is another case of looking at the circumstance to see if the
level of severity it met, bearing in mind that a lot of what the police is doing is for the prevention and
detection of crime. Was the DCI͛s behaviour sufficient enough to constitute harassment? What if the
defendant says something about the claimant not in front of the claimant but the third party tell the
claimant was is said? Some of the behaviour claimed about did not happen in the presence of the particular
claimant. The chief constable argued this does not constitute as harassment. Simon J did not accept this.

Simon J quote: see slides

There is a more general issue about the significance of what is said in the absence of a claimant but
which is later reported to him by a 3rd party. I do not accept that this type of reported conduct
cannot amount to an act of harassment. On the contrary in the circumstances....

This did not constitute harassment. Simon J stated:

' 
   


      
'  



 /
 



  


/
 
    
   

  
        
         

 
  
  
 




 0 
  
       



   
  
1
23
/
   
  





  

 
  !

'

  
 ) &
 
 
    
   
  ) 

Section 3 recognises the civil remedies. You can from suing receive damages for any anxiety caused by the
harassment and financial loss resulted from the harassment. Emotional distress cannot receive damages.
There is no question as to the extent enabling bringing a claim to be easier. Injunction can be received. The
Courts grant an order for the defendant to prevent further harassment.

"#Π 

   
 
  
 
  +
  

 

 


  
!4       
 

 
  )  

   
  
 



567'8
  
9 + 





 
 



     
?
?
" $ 
% &

& 9

  
  
 
  
   
 
  


 
 
 


   
  
  


:8  
;0

 
)


 




 

   

'
$

( Π)
FACTS: This case establishes that companies cannot be claimants under the Act. Animal rights protestors
launched a campaign against various people who were involved in animal testing. The animal testing lab and
anyone who was associated with supplying to the lab were targeted. They would send threatening notes to
the company and the employees. The question was could the company sue the campaignist?

HELD: The answer was no they could not because of section 7 (5). They can be a defendant but they can͛t be
a claimant. Companies with legal and not natural personalities can be a defendant but not a claimant as it is
harassment of individuals. Individual employees were able to make a claim and succeeded in their claim.


*
$$$ 

FACTS: The Claimant complained about articles appearing in the Sun newspaper. She contended that they
amounted to harassment of her and were actionable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The
Defendants' application to have the claim struck out or for summary judgment was dismissed. The
Defendants appealed arguing that newspapers should not be under a burden of showing that articles were
reasonable as that was contrary to freedom of speech. It was questionable as to whether the articles were
capable of amounting to harassment under the 1997 Act. Does it amount to a course of conduct /
harassment to publish a story that does not give a favourable impression of the claimant then to publish
letters which insult the claimant and publish subsequent opinion pieces?

HELD: In general, press criticism, even if robust, did not constitute unreasonable conduct and did not fall
within the natural meaning of harassment. A claimant who did no more than allege that a series of articles
caused distress was liable to be struck out as failing to disclose a claim of harassment. However, where facts
did disclose a proper case of harassment, under s.1 (3) (c) of the Act it was for the appellants to show that
the motive for their conduct was reasonable. Reasonableness was dependent in each case upon the
particular circumstances. Appeal dismissed and The Court of Appeal held that in principle publication of
press articles was capable to amounting to harassment. The courts also were not convinced to there being a
racial element to the story.