SAHA V IMPERIAL COLLEGE [2013] EWHC 2438 (QB)
Child abuse website - harassment
FACTS:-
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.
JUDGEMENT:-
Mr Justice Hambleden went over the facts of the case and went over the qualifications of the parties and their history. During the first year of her project the Claimant and her supervisor got on well. However during the preparation of her PhD, she was required to produce a new report and to have another viva. It was against this background that the first instance of alleged harassment occurred when the supervisor sent an email to the Claimant on 29 May 2004. This was followed by further emails and incidents during the course of June 2004 which were alleged to involve harassment. On 28 May 2010 the present proceedings were issued by the Claimant against the Defendant.
Hambleden J went over the provisions of the 1997 Act. The most relevant provisions of the Act were as follows:
"1. Prohibition of harassment
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows
…
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
2. Offence of harassment
(1) A person who pursues the course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence…
3. Civil remedy
(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.
(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment…
7. Interpretation of this group of sections.
…
(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.
(3) A 'course of conduct' must involve
(a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person, conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person …
….
(4) 'Conduct' includes speech."
Hambleden J considered the following cases:-
(1) There was no course of conduct amounting to harassment;
(2) If there was, the supervisor neither knew nor ought to have known that that course of conduct amounted to harassment.
He would make the same findings in relation to the allegations of harassment made against others employed by the Defendant. The Claimant had not proved that there was harassment of her contrary to section 1 of the Act and her claims would be dismissed.
Child abuse website - harassment
FACTS:-
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.
JUDGEMENT:-
Mr Justice Hambleden went over the facts of the case and went over the qualifications of the parties and their history. During the first year of her project the Claimant and her supervisor got on well. However during the preparation of her PhD, she was required to produce a new report and to have another viva. It was against this background that the first instance of alleged harassment occurred when the supervisor sent an email to the Claimant on 29 May 2004. This was followed by further emails and incidents during the course of June 2004 which were alleged to involve harassment. On 28 May 2010 the present proceedings were issued by the Claimant against the Defendant.
Hambleden J went over the provisions of the 1997 Act. The most relevant provisions of the Act were as follows:
"1. Prohibition of harassment
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows
…
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
2. Offence of harassment
(1) A person who pursues the course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence…
3. Civil remedy
(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.
(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment…
7. Interpretation of this group of sections.
…
(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.
(3) A 'course of conduct' must involve
(a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person, conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person …
….
(4) 'Conduct' includes speech."
Hambleden J considered the following cases:-
- Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EMLR 4
- Majrowski v Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 251 and [2007] 1 AC 224
- Conn v Sunderland City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 1492
- R v Curtis (James Daniel) [2010] 1 WLR 2770
- Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288
- Dowson v Chief Constable of Northumbria [2010] EWHC 2612
(1) There was no course of conduct amounting to harassment;
(2) If there was, the supervisor neither knew nor ought to have known that that course of conduct amounted to harassment.
He would make the same findings in relation to the allegations of harassment made against others employed by the Defendant. The Claimant had not proved that there was harassment of her contrary to section 1 of the Act and her claims would be dismissed.