THOMAS HODSON & Anor v PERSON UNKNOWN A & Ors
The claimants proved on the balance of probabilities that the defendants orchestrated the harassment, entitling them to a permanent injunction and damages for distress and security costs under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
- Parties
- First Claimant: Thomas Hodson; Second Claimant: Hodson Developments Limited; First Defendant: Person Unknown A; Second Defendant: Person Unknown B; Third Defendant: David Darby; Fourth Defendant: Laurence Darby
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 July 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
- Outcome
- Claim allowed
- Legal Topics
- Harassment, Injunctions, Damages, Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas Hodson
First Claimant
Hodson Developments Limited
Second Claimant
Person Unknown A
First Defendant
Person Unknown B
Second Defendant
David Darby
Third Defendant
Laurence Darby
Fourth Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants orchestrated acts of harassment against the claimants
- 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to injunctions and damages under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Ratio Decidendi
The claimants proved on the balance of probabilities that the defendants orchestrated the harassment, entitling them to a permanent injunction and damages for distress and security costs under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed
Orders
- Permanent injunction granted against David Darby and Laurence Darby restraining harassment of Thomas Hodson and Hodson Developments Limited
- General damages of £11,500 awarded to Thomas Hodson for distress and injury to feelings
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment