Conn v City of Sunderland

Conn v City of Sunderland

The Court of Appeal held that the recorder was wrong to find that there were two incidents sufficient to amount to a course of conduct constituting harassment under the 1997 Act. The first incident did not cross the threshold into criminal harassment, as it involved no physical threat to the claimant and was not targeted solely at him. The conduct did not justify criminal sanction and thus did not meet the statutory requirements for civil liability. The appeal was allowed and the judgment for the claimant was set aside.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Conn; Respondent/claimant: The Council of the City of Sunderland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim for damages dismissed
Legal Topics
Harassment, Vicarious Liability, Damages, Workplace Conduct
Employment Law Tort Law Harassment Vicarious Liability Damages Workplace Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conn

Appellant/defendant

The Council of the City of Sunderland

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of Mr Dryden amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the incidents constituted a 'course of conduct' sufficient for civil liability
  3. 3 Whether the employer was vicariously liable for the acts of Mr Dryden

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the recorder was wrong to find that there were two incidents sufficient to amount to a course of conduct constituting harassment under the 1997 Act. The first incident did not cross the threshold into criminal harassment, as it involved no physical threat to the claimant and was not targeted solely at him. The conduct did not justify criminal sanction and thus did not meet the statutory requirements for civil liability. The appeal was allowed and the judgment for the claimant was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim for damages dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant set aside
  • Claim for damages for harassment dismissed in its entirety