Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor
[2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
Zdzislaw Sledziewski & Anor v Persons Unknown going by Chapona (aka) Chapona Bicyclette & Anor
29 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1955 (KB)
High Court
A YouTuber posted a video about a company's van nearly hitting him. The company sued for harassment. The judge said the video, while upsetting, didn't meet the legal definition of harassment because the YouTuber was expressing views on a matter of public interest. The judge refused to stop the video from being online.
Key Facts
- •A cyclist (First Defendant) posted a video online showing a close pass by a van belonging to Cornices Centre Ltd (Second Claimant).
- •The video included criticism of Cornices Centre and its driver.
- •The First Claimant (managing director of Cornices Centre) emailed the First Defendant demanding removal of Cornices Centre's name.
- •The First Defendant responded with emails demanding compensation.
- •A second YouTuber (Second Defendant) made videos about the dispute.
- •Third parties posted abusive comments online.
- •Claimants sought an interim injunction for harassment against the First Defendant.
- •The Second Defendant gave undertakings and the claim against him was dropped.
Legal Principles
Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA)
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Principles of harassment as summarized in Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)
Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)
Harassment by publication and Article 10 ECHR rights
Thomas v News Group Newspapers [2002] EMLR 4, Trimingham v Associated Newspapers [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB), Sube v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EMLR 25, McNally v Saunders [2022] EMLR 3
Attribution of conduct under PfHA s7(3A)
PfHA s7(3A), Davies v Carter [2021] EWHC 3012 (QB)
Interim injunctions and Human Rights Act 1998 s.12(3)
Human Rights Act 1998 s.12(3), Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253
Outcomes
Application for interim injunction refused.
The court found it unlikely that the claimant would succeed at trial in proving harassment. The defendant's actions, while unreasonable in some respects, were not likely to be considered sufficiently oppressive to constitute harassment, particularly given the context of citizen journalism and the defendant's eventual removal of the claimant's name and request to cease harassment.