Timothy Robert Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
[2024] EWHC 606 (KB)
Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
6 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
High Court
A brother-in-law sent nasty emails with false accusations to the claimant's bosses and colleagues. A judge stopped him from doing it again until the case is fully heard. The judge said the emails were harassment and the brother-in-law could not justify his actions.
Key Facts
- •The Claimant, Timothy John Hull Pattinson, sought an interim injunction against the Defendant, Robert Ian Winsor, his brother-in-law, under s.3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- •The Defendant had sent numerous emails containing serious and baseless allegations of fraud, theft, and money laundering against the Claimant to a wide range of recipients, including the Claimant's colleagues and superiors.
- •The Defendant's allegations stemmed from previous litigation concerning a will and bankruptcy proceedings.
- •The interim injunction hearing was held without notice to the Defendant due to concerns he would exacerbate the situation.
- •The Claimant's application engaged the Defendant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR, necessitating consideration of s.12 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Legal Principles
Interim injunctions can be granted without notice if there are good reasons (CPR r. 25.3).
CPR r. 25.3
Without notice applications require full and frank disclosure (CPR r. 25.3).
CPR r. 25.3
Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies where an interim injunction might affect freedom of expression. It sets out requirements for granting relief without the respondent being present or represented.
Human Rights Act 1998, s.12
The test for an interim injunction is the three-part American Cyanamid test: (a) serious question to be tried; (b) adequacy of damages; (c) balance of convenience.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 (HL)
For pre-trial restraint on publication, the Claimant must be likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed (s.12(3) HRA and Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253 (HL)).
Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(3); Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253 (HL)
Harassment under s.1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires a course of conduct amounting to harassment which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.1(1)
Harassment includes alarming or causing distress (s.7(2) Protection from Harassment Act 1997) and carries its ordinary English meaning (Hayes v Willoughby [2013] 1 WLR 935). It must cross the boundary from regrettable to unacceptable conduct of a gravity sustaining criminal liability under s.2 of the Act.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.7(2); Hayes v Willoughby [2013] 1 WLR 935; Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224
The defence under s.1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, that conduct was pursued to prevent or detect crime, requires a rational consideration of the possibility of criminality and a view that harassment was appropriate for that purpose (Hayes v Willoughby).
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.1(3)(a); Hayes v Willoughby [2013] 1 WLR 935
Outcomes
The court granted the Claimant an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from further publishing the allegations.
The court found that the Defendant's conduct amounted to harassment, that damages would be inadequate, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also considered and rejected the Defendant's potential defences.