Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
[2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
Robert Sully & Ors v Julia Mazur & Anor
2 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 1999 (KB)
High Court
Two neighbours fought in court over access to land and annoying behaviour. The court ordered the annoying neighbour to stop contacting the other neighbour and other people involved, because their behaviour was likely to be found as harassment in a full trial. The case shows how even seemingly small disputes can escalate into serious legal issues related to harassment.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between neighboring property owners in rural Sussex over right of way and alleged harassment.
- •Claimants (siblings) erected a fence on their property, leading to multiple disputes with Defendants.
- •Defendants repeatedly contacted Claimants and third parties (estate agents, employer, etc.) expressing concerns and making allegations.
- •Claimants sought an interim injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- •Defendants denied harassment, claiming their actions were reasonable and justified.
Legal Principles
Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Principles for determining harassment (summarized from Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB))
Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)
Interim injunctions and Human Rights Act 1998 s.12(3)
Human Rights Act 1998 s.12(3)
Unclean hands doctrine in injunction applications
Bean on Injunctions, 14th edn at 2-05
Delay in injunction applications
Gee on Commercial Injunctions, 7th edn at 2-033
Outcomes
Interim injunction granted prohibiting Defendants from contacting Claimants and certain third parties except through Claimants' solicitors.
Court found it likely that Claimants would succeed at trial in showing Defendants' course of conduct amounted to harassment. The Court considered the tone, frequency, and content of the Defendants' correspondence, their communications with third parties, and their justifications for their actions. The Court rejected the Defendants' arguments of unclean hands and delay.
Claim to proceed under CPR Part 7
Significant factual disputes were anticipated, necessitating a full trial under Part 7 rather than the expedited Part 8 procedure.