High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Harassment Case: Balance of Freedom of Expression and Protection from Unfounded Allegations

Citation: [2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor [2024] EWHC 230 (KB), the High Court dealt with an application for an interim injunction under s.3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the “1997 Act”). The application was set against the backdrop of alleged harassment, consisting of the Defendant spreading unfounded and serious allegations against the Claimant. This analysis will scrutinize the key topics discussed within the judgment, detailing the legal principles applied by The Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE, and the rationale behind the court’s decision.

Key Facts

The Claimant, Timothy John Hull Pattinson, is married to the sister of the Defendant, Robert Ian Winsor. A series of disputes arose following the death of the Defendant’s mother and the subsequent probate proceedings. The Defendant claimed that the Claimant and his wife (the Defendant’s sister), as Executors of the Will, exercised fraudulent calumny and undue influence—a claim previously dismissed in other court proceedings.

The Defendant engaged in a campaign of communication involving serious allegations against the Claimant and contacted various third parties, including judicial figures and MPs. This led to the Claimant seeking an interim injunction to prevent further communications which he considered amounted to harassment.

The judgment invokes several key legal principles:

  1. Harassment: S.1 of the 1997 Act defines harassment and puts emphasis on conduct which alarms the person or causes distress. Mrs Justice Steyn relies on Hayes v Willoughby [2013] 1 WLR 935 and Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224 to clarify the threshold for behavior that constitutes harassment and the subjectivity of the harassment claim, respectively.

  2. Without Notice Hearing and Human Rights: The claim was heard without notice pursuant to CPR r. 25.3. The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), specifically s.12, necessitates certain safeguards when the court is considering granting relief that might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression. The court considered whether the applicant had taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent.

  3. American Cyanamid Test: The court applied the American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 guidelines to determine the appropriateness of an interim injunction, requiring serious questions to be tried, inadequacy of damages as a remedy, and balance of convenience.

  4. Freedom of Expression: The European Convention on Human Rights is engaged under Article 10, which relates to the Defendant’s right to freedom of expression.

  5. Public Interest Disclosure: As part of the Defendant’s defense, the concept of whistleblowing is mentioned, however, it is made clear that the defense under s.1(3)(a) of the 1997 Act is not entirely subjective and requires rational belief that the conduct was appropriate for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime.

Outcomes

The court was satisfied that the interim injunction should be granted based on the following:

  • The allegations constituted harassment and distress to the Claimant.
  • The Claimant is likely to establish that the Defendant’s allegations should not be published at trial.
  • Damages would not be an adequate remedy due to potential reputational damage.
  • Balance of convenience favored the granting of the injunction to prevent further injustice or harm.
  • A return date for the interim injunction was set, allowing the Defendant a chance to oppose the continuation of the order.

Conclusion

The court’s determination in Pattinson v Winsor showcases the application of the legal principles surrounding the right to freedom of expression, contrasted with the statutory interpretation of harassment under the 1997 Act. Mrs Justice Steyn carefully balanced the need to uphold individual rights while protecting individuals from unfounded and potentially damaging allegations. This case serves as a pertinent example of British courts interpreting harassment in the context of Article 10 of the ECHR and the Conditions under which courts can grant interim injunctions without notice. It highlights the need for alleged harassers to demonstrate rationality, especially when claiming to be whistleblowers. The judgment in this case provides guidance on the standards required to obtain interim injunctive relief within the domain of harassment and underscores the judiciary’s careful consideration of claims that intertwine with the fundamental right of freedom of expression.