Timothy Robert Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
[2024] EWHC 606 (KB)
David Punt v Bonaventura Nino Ruocco
6 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2530 (KB)
High Court
A man was bothering a company relentlessly over a decades-old bankruptcy issue. A judge issued an order to stop the man from harassing the company and made it so the company could be protected unless there was a specific reason to do otherwise.
Key Facts
- •Mr. David Punt and RSM UK Management Limited (RSM) applied for continuation of an injunction against Mr. Bonaventura Nino Ruocco.
- •The injunction, initially granted by Mr. Justice Lavender, prevents harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- •Mr. Ruocco, representing himself, was calm and respectful during the hearing.
- •Mr. Ruocco was declared bankrupt in 1996; his pension was claimed by the Official Receiver in 2021 due to the then-applicable bankruptcy law.
- •The dispute arises from Mr. Ruocco's belief that documents RSM provided to the Official Receiver concerning his bankruptcy were inaccurate.
- •Mr. Ruocco engaged in extensive contact (over 2500 calls) with RSM employees, leading to allegations of harassment.
- •RSM's connection to Mr. Ruocco's bankruptcy is tenuous, as they employed his former trustee (Mr. Beat) years later and only provided potentially inaccurate documentation.
Legal Principles
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Criteria for interim injunctions (serious issue to be tried, inadequacy of damages, balance of convenience)
Case law (implied)
Cross-undertaking in damages for interim injunctions
FSA v Sinaloa [2013] UKSC 11; JSC v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 139
Insolvency Act (potential mechanism to re-open matters)
Insolvency Act (implied)
Outcomes
The injunction was continued.
There is a serious issue to be tried regarding harassment; damages are inadequate; the balance of convenience favors the continuation of the injunction.
The cross-undertaking in damages remained unlimited.
There was no evidence to justify limiting the cross-undertaking; fairness requires an unlimited cross-undertaking for interim injunctions.