The second claimant was wife to a businessman involved in football. It was said that the defendant, manager of Leeds United, together with the club and a radio station had harassed the first claimant. She was affected but not the intended victim. She appealed dismissal of her claim.
Held: The 1997 Act did not require for the statutory tort of harassment that the claimant must be a target of the perpetrator’s conduct.
Briggs LJ considered that ‘it is not a requirement of the statutory tort of harassment that the claimant be the (or even a) target of the perpetrator’s conduct’ and ‘provided that it is targeted at someone, the conduct complained of need not be targeted at the claimant, if he or she is foreseeably likely to be directly alarmed or distressed by it’.
Ryder LJ said: ‘[The Judge] ought to have held that targeting is an objective concept that includes a situation where the conduct complained of is not only intended to harm a particular victim, but would also foreseeably harm another person, because of her proximity to the intended victim’.
Longmore LJ said: ‘It is right that, for the statutory tort of harassment to occur, there must be a course of conduct which is aimed (or targeted) at an individual since that is inherent in the term ‘harassment’. But I see no reason why it should be only that individual who can sue, if the defendant knows or ought to know that his conduct will amount to harassment of another individual. The tort (and crime) of harassment does not require an intent to harass any one individual; section 1 of the Act is clear that the question whether conduct is harassing conduct is an objective question for the fact-finder. If therefore a defendant knows or ought to know that his conduct amounts to harassment, he should be liable to the person harassed, even if the conduct is aimed at another person. A defendant is always entitled to show, pursuant to section 1(3) of the Act, that in the particular circumstances, his pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.’
Judges:
Longmore, Ryder, Briggs LJJ
Citations:
[2015] EWCA Civ 206, [2015] 3 WLR 769, [2015] 2 Cr App R 19, [2015] EMLR 22, [2016] QB 91, [2015] WLR(D) 119, [2016] 1 All ER 625
Links:
Statutes:
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1(1) 3(1) 7(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Apperal from – Levi v Bates QBD 2-Jul-2009
The court was asked to make preliminary findings in an action brought regarding what were said to be defamatory remarks published in the football programmes for Leeds United. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Gerrard and Another v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and Another QBD 27-Nov-2020
The claimants, a solicitor and his wife, sought damages in harassment and data protection, against a party to proceedings in which he was acting professionally, and against the investigative firm instructed by them. The defendants now requested the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Media
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.544258