Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
[2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
Foot Anstey LLP & Anor v Sean Stimson
12 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2621 (KB)
High Court
A law firm got an interim court order to stop someone harassing them and their clients with threats and abusive calls. The court agreed that the harassment was serious and likely to continue without the order. The order will stop the harasser from contacting the firm except in very specific ways, until a full hearing.
Key Facts
- •Foot Anstey LLP and Foot Anstey Corporation Limited (Applicants) applied for an interim injunction against Sean Stimson (Respondent) under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- •The dispute stemmed from a will contest involving the Respondent's aunt's estate.
- •The Respondent's alleged harassing conduct included threats of confrontation, misuse of domain names, threats of malware, and obscene phone calls.
- •The Respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
- •The court considered whether to proceed in the Respondent's absence, referencing CPR 23.11 and Pirtek (UK) Limited v Robert Jackson [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB).
- •The court reviewed evidence of four abusive phone calls made to female employees of the Applicant firm.
- •The court considered the Respondent's potential defenses under sections 1(3)(a) and 1(3)(c) of the PHA.
- •The court applied the American Cyanamid test and the Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3) threshold.
Legal Principles
Court's power to proceed in the absence of a respondent.
CPR 23.11(1)
Principles for deciding whether to proceed in a respondent's absence.
Pirtek (UK) Limited v Robert Jackson [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB)
Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(2): No relief affecting freedom of expression is granted unless the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent, or there are compelling reasons not to notify.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(2)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1(1A): Definition of harassment.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1(1A)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1(2): Objective test for knowledge of harassing conduct.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1(2)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 3A: Power to apply for an injunction.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 3A
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 7(3): Definition of 'course of conduct'.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 7(3)
Threshold of seriousness for harassment claims; conduct must go beyond what is tolerable in modern society and be 'oppressive and unacceptable'.
Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34; Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Limited [2016] EWHC 3110
American Cyanamid v Ethicon & Co [1975] UKHL 1: Test for granting interim injunctions (serious question to be tried, adequacy of damages, cross-undertaking, balance of convenience).
American Cyanamid v Ethicon & Co [1975] UKHL 1
Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3): Higher threshold for injunctions affecting freedom of expression ('more likely than not').
Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3); Khan v Khan [2018] EWHC 241
Outcomes
Interim injunction granted.
The court found that the Applicants were likely to succeed at trial in showing harassment under the PHA, and that the American Cyanamid and Human Rights Act 1998, section 12(3) thresholds were met. The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.