Eleanor Guildford secures final harassment injunction, £11,000 damages and costs for two Leeds businessmen at the County Court.

Eleanor was instructed by Whiterose Blackman Solicitors for the Claimants in a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to sections 1 and 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Having secured an interim injunction earlier this year, Eleanor applied for summary judgment and final orders pursuant to CPR 24.3(a) and (b).

The Court considered the Defendant’s persistent and oppressive course of conduct over a six-month period following the dissolution of a romantic relationship between the first Claimant and Defendant. The Claimants’ witness statements outlined a chronology of escalating behaviour including, inter alia, unwanted attendances at their property late at night, making up to thirty telephone calls per day and publishing false, derogatory and threatening posts and videos on social media to the world at large, identifying the Claimants and their wider family.

In particular, the Court considered the harassing element of the Defendant’s conduct derived largely from the way in which the behaviour was perpetrated than the meaning of words published. For example: (i) the Defendant had utilised a variety of telephone numbers which had the effect of concealing the Defendant’s identity; (ii) messages and attendances occurred at unsociable hours; (iii) calls were made to the Claimants’ place of work, and (iv) social media posts identified them by name and tagged several media outlets, thereby maximising the Claimants’ suffering. Further, the principle in Levi v Bates [2015] EWCA Civ 206 (a case in which Simon Myerson KC appeared for the successful appellants) was relevant to the actionable yet indirect harassment of the second claimant, as a consequence of harassment targeted at the first claimant to whom he was closely related.

Damages for harassment are quantified by reference to the Vento guidelines, which originate from the case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No. 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 1871. The Vento bands have been increased numerous times since: see the latest Employment Tribunal’s Presidential Guidance, dated 25 March 2024.

“a lower band of £1,200 to £11,700 (less serious cases); a middle band of £11,700 to £35,200 (cases that do not merit an award in the upper band); and an upper band of £35,200 to £58,700 (the most serious cases), with the most exceptional cases capable of exceeding £58,700”.

The Claimants were awarded their costs of the application and special damages for the first Claimant who had been forced to leave his home on several occasions to protect himself from the Defendant’s conduct.

A succinct summary of the jurisprudence in this area can be found at paragraphs 40-44 of Nicklin J’s judgment in Hayden v Dickinson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) and at paragraphs 20-23 of Collins Rice J’s Judgment in LCG v OVD [2023] EWHC 2058 (KB).

Eleanor regularly acts for Claimants and Defendants in harassment, defamation, data protection and privacy matters and is frequently instructed to undertake advisory work, draft statements of case and represent clients. Contact the clerking team to make further enquiries. [email protected]