tort of harassment

• protection from harassment act 1997 


  creates a statutory tort whereby a defendant is liable to the claimant in damages if the defendant engages in the course of conduct which amounts to harassment of the claimant and which the defendant knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of the claimant.
• s1 


  a person must not pursue a course of conduct

  1. which amounts to harassment of another and
  2. which he knows or ought to know amounts to the harassment of another

  the prohibition in this section is enforceable by the creation of a criminal offence (s2) and by a civil remedy (s3)
• s3.1 


  provides that an actual or apprehended breach of s1 may be the subject of a claim of civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victims of the course of conduct in question
• summary of elements of this tort 


  1. course of conduct by the defendant amounting to harassment
  2. targeted at an individual
  3. defendant had knowledge of the harassment
  4. conduct was judged to be oppressive and unacceptable
  5. caused the claimant damage
• ruth and another v jones and another (2011)


  related to a dispute between neighbours. claimants were originally successful with their claim regarding the torts of nuisance and trespass but were not awarded any damages for harassment. they appealed and it was held they were entitled to damages
• 4 hallmarks of harassment

  • persistent
  • intentional
  • personal
  • physical or non-physical
• what constitutes as harassment?

  does not need to give rise to a recognised psychiatric injury to be actionable, mere anxiety or distress is sufficient. where threats are alleged to be of the conduct amounting to harassment, injunctive relief will be the primary remedy sought by the claimant
• ting lan hong and KLM ( a child) v XYZ (2011)


  ting lan hong, claimant and mother of actor hugh grants child, complained that she was regularly photographed in the street without her consent, that she received numerous phone calls telling her to tell hugh grant to 'shut up' in relation to his appearance on question time regarding the phone-hacking scandal', that she had been warned that a man in a black audi had been following her. the court held that harassment and had been proven and an injunction was granted against paparazzi photographers.
• is the law doing enough to stop stalking and harassment?

  although the protection from harassment act 1997 helped protect individuals from workplace bullying, it has been argued there wasnt enough protection for stalking. brett wilson llp suggest that leaving out the term 'stalking' from the act was letting the victims down. in response, the protection of freedoms act 2012 included an offence to 'pursue a course of conduct which you know or ought to know amounts to harassment of another, and where the conduct amounts to stalking'.
• protections of freedoms act 2012 


  doesnt specifically define stalking but a series of indictive behaviours are listed.

  • following a person
  • contacting, or attempted to contact a person by any means
  • publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purpoting to originate from a person
  • monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form or electronic communication
  • loitering in any place (public or private)
  • interfering with any property in the possession of a person
  • watching or spying on a person
• is the protections of freedoms act 2012 enough?

  it has raised awareness of the issue and made collecting data on the offence easier. but, there is no definitive definition of stalking and sentencing powers are still the same as harassment. statistically, there 9,172 prosecution for harassment and 713 for stalking in 2023/2014 according to the CPS. however, prosecutions for stalking are arising in only 1% of complaints about the broader category of behaviour. also, only 20% of convictions ended up with an immediate prison sentence
• protection from sexual harassment act 2023

  some provisions included employers not being liable for '3rd party sexual harassment'. law firm, winckworth sherwood describes these new amendments as 'watering down' liability when it comes to sexual assault