Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
[2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
RBT v YLA
18 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1855 (KB)
High Court
A former employee sent threatening emails and messages to his boss, trying to get money. A judge agreed that the employee's actions were harassment and kept an order in place to stop him. The judge refused to delay the case because the employee didn't provide good enough evidence for why he couldn't show up to court.
Key Facts
- •RBT (Claimant) is the founder of an asset management company.
- •YLA (Defendant) was dismissed from a management position at RBT's company.
- •YLA initiated Employment Tribunal proceedings which were struck out.
- •YLA allegedly harassed RBT through a series of emails and WhatsApp messages, threatening to damage RBT's business and reputation.
- •YLA allegedly made unwarranted demands with menaces.
- •RBT obtained an interim injunction against YLA.
- •YLA failed to attend the return date hearing due to alleged medical reasons.
- •The court continued the interim injunction in YLA's absence.
Legal Principles
Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Principles summarizing harassment case law, including the objective test and balance between Article 8 and 10 rights
Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)
Blackmail under the Theft Act 1968
Theft Act 1968 s.21
Interim injunctions and the Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(3) test
Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(3)
Bonnard v Perryman test for interim injunctions in defamation cases
Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269
Witness immunity rule in harassment cases regarding reports to the police
Crawford v Jenkins [2016] QB 231
Retention of employer's documents for litigation purposes
Payone GmbH v Logo [2024] EWHC 981 (KB)
Costs in interim injunction applications
Melford Capital Partners (Holdings) LLP v Wingfield Digby [2021] 1 WLR 1553
Outcomes
Interim injunction continued until trial.
The court found the Claimant was likely to succeed at trial in obtaining a final injunction based on the evidence presented, including the threatening and harassing nature of the Defendant's communications, his persistent conduct, and the likely finding of blackmail.
Defendant's application for adjournment denied.
Insufficient medical evidence was provided to justify the adjournment. The court noted inconsistencies in the Defendant's explanations and concerns about potential disorderly conduct.
Costs reserved.
The court held that the normal approach is to reserve costs in interim injunction applications unless there are special factors, which were not present in this case.
Application for default judgment not dealt with.
The court deemed it inappropriate to decide on the default judgment application without giving the Defendant an opportunity to respond, considering the circumstances.