Case Law On High Court Enforcement Of Harassment Regulations
⚖️ 1. Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34
Facts:
Mr. Majrowski, a clinical audit coordinator, claimed his manager subjected him to bullying and intimidation at work. He sued the NHS Trust (his employer) under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, arguing that the employer should be vicariously liable for the acts of harassment carried out by its employee.
Judgment:
The House of Lords (then the highest appellate court, now the Supreme Court) held that an employer can be held vicariously liable under the PHA 1997 for harassment committed by its employees in the course of employment.
Legal Significance:
This case confirmed that the PHA 1997 creates both civil and criminal liability.
It established that harassment does not need to be physical; persistent and oppressive conduct can suffice.
It extended liability to employers, emphasizing the duty to protect employees from workplace harassment.
⚖️ 2. Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46
Facts:
Mrs. Ferguson, a former British Gas customer, continued to receive threatening letters and demands for payment long after she had closed her account. She claimed this amounted to harassment by the company.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that even though the conduct was automated and not deliberate in the human sense, the company’s negligent system that repeatedly sent threatening letters could still amount to harassment under the PHA 1997.
Legal Significance:
Harassment can occur through corporate negligence — not only through intentional acts.
The decision reinforced that “course of conduct” includes repeated communications causing alarm or distress.
It demonstrated the broad application of harassment law beyond interpersonal contexts — including commercial and administrative harassment.
⚖️ 3. Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17
Facts:
Mr. Hayes accused Mr. Willoughby of fraud and repeatedly reported him to authorities over several years, even after investigations cleared him. Mr. Willoughby sued under the PHA 1997.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the defence under Section 1(3)(a) of the PHA 1997 — “pursuing a course of conduct for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime” — only applies if the conduct is rationally connected to that purpose. Once the pursuit becomes irrational or obsessive, it no longer qualifies.
Legal Significance:
Clarified the limits of the lawful-purpose defence.
Reinforced that harassment laws apply even where someone believes they are acting lawfully if the conduct becomes obsessive or unreasonable.
Established a balance between free expression and protection from oppressive behaviour.
⚖️ 4. Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233
Facts:
The claimant, Ms. Thomas, alleged that The Sun newspaper had published a series of articles that harassed her and invaded her privacy.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that for harassment to be actionable under the PHA 1997, the conduct must cross the boundary from irritations or annoyances into oppressive and unacceptable behaviour. The court emphasized that the act protects individuals from a campaign of targeted distress, not just ordinary press reporting.
Legal Significance:
Defined the threshold for harassment as conduct that is oppressive and unacceptable.
Confirmed that media organisations can be held liable for harassment through repeated intrusive reporting.
Set boundaries between legitimate journalism and unlawful harassment.
⚖️ 5. Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123
Facts:
Mr. Iqbal, a solicitor, claimed that another firm’s correspondence contained threats and accusations amounting to harassment. The issue was whether sending letters in the course of litigation could amount to harassment.
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that litigation conduct could amount to harassment if it went beyond reasonable legal correspondence and became oppressive or abusive.
Legal Significance:
Clarified that professional correspondence can still constitute harassment.
Reinforced that harassment is an objective test — would a reasonable person think the conduct amounts to harassment?
Provided guidance for professionals: legitimate legal pressure is not harassment, but repeated threats or intimidation may be.
🧩 Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Case | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Employers can be vicariously liable for harassment | Majrowski v Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust | Harassment in the workplace engages employer liability. |
| Corporate systems can commit harassment | Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd | Repeated automated threats can amount to harassment. |
| Rational connection to lawful purpose required | Hayes v Willoughby | Defence of crime prevention limited to rational acts. |
| Harassment threshold: “oppressive and unacceptable” | Thomas v News Group Newspapers | Clarifies the standard for press or public conduct. |
| Legal correspondence can be harassment | Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors | Professional communications can cross the line into harassment. |
🧠 Overall Enforcement Pattern by the High Court
Wide Interpretation: The High Court interprets “harassment” broadly — encompassing physical, psychological, written, and electronic forms of behaviour.
Objective Test: Whether conduct constitutes harassment depends on what a reasonable person would consider oppressive or unacceptable.
Balance with Rights: The courts carefully balance freedom of expression and legitimate activity with the right not to be subjected to harassment.
Corporate and Professional Accountability: Both companies and individuals can be liable; intent is not always required.
Remedies: The courts can issue injunctions, damages, and even committal proceedings for breach of harassment orders.
RELATED Blog
comments