Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd

Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd

The Association's course of conduct, consisting of repeated threats of legal action and possession based on unfounded allegations, without proper investigation or justification, was oppressive and unacceptable, amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The trial judge correctly found that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be harassment, and the statutory defence of reasonableness was not made out.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Colin Worthington; Claimant/respondent: Ms Lynda Parkin; Defendant/appellant: Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for claimants upheld
Legal Topics
Harassment, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Damages for Harassment, Landlord's Duties, Threats of Possession Proceedings
Tort Law Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure Harassment Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Damages for Harassment Landlord's Duties Threats of Possession Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Colin Worthington

Claimant/respondent

Ms Lynda Parkin

Claimant/respondent

Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd amounted to harassment under s.1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the course of conduct was reasonable under s.1(3)(c) of the 1997 Act
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in law in finding harassment and in rejecting the statutory defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Association's course of conduct, consisting of repeated threats of legal action and possession based on unfounded allegations, without proper investigation or justification, was oppressive and unacceptable, amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The trial judge correctly found that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be harassment, and the statutory defence of reasonableness was not made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for claimants upheld

Orders

  • Damages awarded to Mr Worthington (£4,750) and Ms Parkin (£4,160) for harassment
  • No order for possession or injunction against claimants