Hayes v Butters & Ors

Hayes v Butters & Ors

A claim for damages for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that straddles the date of bankruptcy is not a single indivisible cause of action. Each post-bankruptcy act of harassment causing new loss gives rise to a new cause of action, which remains with the bankrupt and does not vest in the trustee. The claim for an injunction is also personal and remains with the bankrupt. Therefore, it is not an abuse of process for the bankrupt to pursue such claims, and the application to strike out is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Timothy Hayes; First Defendant: Graham Butters; Second Defendant: Carol Hayes; Third Defendant / Trustee in Bankruptcy: Stephen Grant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment / Insolvency / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Estate Vesting, Hybrid Claims, Protection From Harassment Act, Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications
Insolvency Tort Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Estate Vesting Hybrid Claims Protection From Harassment Act Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Hayes

Claimant

Graham Butters

First Defendant

Carol Hayes

Second Defendant

Stephen Grant

Third Defendant / Trustee in Bankruptcy

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment / Insolvency / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for damages and/or injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 vests in the trustee in bankruptcy when the alleged course of conduct straddles the date of bankruptcy
  2. 2 Whether the claim is a hybrid claim under Ord v Upton and thus vests in the trustee
  3. 3 Whether it is an abuse of process for the bankrupt to pursue the claim

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for damages for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that straddles the date of bankruptcy is not a single indivisible cause of action. Each post-bankruptcy act of harassment causing new loss gives rise to a new cause of action, which remains with the bankrupt and does not vest in the trustee. The claim for an injunction is also personal and remains with the bankrupt. Therefore, it is not an abuse of process for the bankrupt to pursue such claims, and the application to strike out is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Application by Mr Grant to strike out the claim is dismissed
  • Case to be retransferred to the county court for trial on liability