SAHA V IMPERIAL COLLEGE  EWHC 2438 (QB) The Claimant was a PhD student in the Division of Cell and Molecular Biology at Imperial College, London, the Defendant from 1 October 2002 to 30 September 2005. She claimed damages in excess of £1.5 million for personal injury and loss arising from alleged harassment by her supervisor and employed members of his team at the college. The claim is brought pursuant to section 3 of the Protection of Harassment Act 1997 for alleged breach of section 1 of the Act. Full report here.
HAYES V WILLOUGHBY  UKSC 17 The Claimant was a businessman who used to manage a number of companies involved in software development. One of those companies employed the Defendant and in 2002, the two of them fell out, resulting in acrimonious litigation. In late 2003, it was alleged that the Defendant embarked on an unpleasant and obsessive personal vendetta against the Claimant, alleging that his management of his companies was characterised by fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion.Full report here.
ABK V KDT AND ANOTHER  EWHC 1192 QB This was an application for an injunction. An order had already been granted to protect the Claimant's right to confidentiality and privacy in respect of certain personal photographs and information and, secondly to protect her from harassment in the form of communications addressed by the Defendants to herself and her employers to which she did not consent, and attempts by the Second Defendant to meet her, again without her consent. The Claimant was a married woman living with her husband. She had an affair with the Second Defendant. Full report here.
AMP V PERSONS UNKNOWN  EWHC 3454 This was an application for an interim injunction to prevent transmission, storage and indexing of any part of parts of certain photographic images which were claimed to belong to the Claimant. The Claimant’s mobile phone was stolen whilst she was at University. The phone contained sexual images of the Claimant, as well as other digital images of her family and friends. These images were uploaded onto a free onlilne media hosting service. The Claimant contacted the hosting service and the images were removed in about August 2008. Full report here.
JONES AND LOVEGROVE V RUTH AND RUTH  EWCA Civ 804 The Claimants commenced proceedings against the Defendants in relation to works carried out to the Defendant’s adjoining house. They sued for nuisance, trespass, personal injury and financial loss caused by negligence and also under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The trial judge had found for the Claimants in trespass and nuisance. He awarded the Claimants £30,000 for loss of amenity and enjoyment and a further £45,000 for nuisance. He also awarded Ms. Jones £6,000 for harassment but did not award in terms any damages for the personal injury.Full report here.
MARTINS V. CHOUDHARY  EWCA Civ 1379 The Claimant’s vehicle collided with that of the Defendant, and an argument ensued. The Claimant sued the Defendant and at trial, the judge found that the Defendant had intended to collide with the Claimant’s car. There were a number of incidents of racist behaviour towards the Defendant from the Claimant and the judge found that there was a course of conduct which amounted to the statutory tort of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.Full report here.
MAJROWSKI V GUY’S AND ST THOMAS’ NHS TRUST  UKHL 34 The Defendant employed the Claimant as a clinical auditor co-ordinator. He claimed that his departmental manager bullied and intimidated him. She was rude and abusive to him in front of other staff, as well as being excessively critical of his time keeping and work. He made a formal complaint in of harassment against her on the 20th April 1998, which resulted in a finding that harassment had occurred. On the 7th June 1999, the Defendant was dismissed for reasons unconnected with the harassment.Full report here.
The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed. In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so. It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such. To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material. Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.