RBT v YLA
[2024] EWHC 1855 (KB)
Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Atinuke Okunola
18 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2641 (KB)
High Court
A company tried to get a court order to stop their former employee from harassing their lawyers. The court said no, because the lawyers hadn't asked for the order themselves. Even though the employee was very rude, the court didn't make her pay the company's legal fees because the situation was unusual and the employee's bad behavior caused the problem in the first place. The company can try again to appeal the decision.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd and others) sought a protective injunction against the Defendant (Marian Okunola), a former employee, to prevent her from harassing their lawyers.
- •The Defendant had previously been found in contempt of court for breaching an injunction prohibiting harassment and dissemination of confidential information.
- •The Defendant continued to send abusive and sexually explicit emails to the Claimants' lawyers, counsel, and court staff.
- •The Claimants argued that the Defendant's conduct impeded the progress of the litigation and caused them significant costs.
- •The Defendant argued that the Claimants lacked a cause of action to support the injunction application.
Legal Principles
Test for granting interim injunctions (American Cyanamid test)
American Cyanamid v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
Restriction on granting relief affecting freedom of expression (Human Rights Act 1998)
Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(3)
Definition and defenses of harassment (Protection From Harassment Act 1997)
Protection From Harassment Act 1997, s.1
Overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
CPR 1.1
Court's inherent jurisdiction and case management powers
CPR 3.1(2)(m)
Cause of action rule for injunctions
Bean, ‘Injunctions’ (Fourth Edition)
Article 10 ECHR - Freedom of expression
Redmond-Bate v DPP [2000] HRLR 249
Outcomes
Application for protective injunction dismissed.
The court found that the Claimants lacked a cause of action to support the injunction, as it was effectively seeking to protect their lawyers, who had not themselves brought a claim.
No order for costs.
The court considered the Defendant's egregious conduct in provoking the application and the novel legal issue involved.
Permission to appeal granted.
The novel nature of the legal issue.