Hayden v Dickenson

Hayden v Dickenson

The Claimant failed to demonstrate that the Defendant's conduct crossed the threshold for harassment or that an interim injunction was necessary or proportionate. The majority of the Defendant's posts were not targeted at the Claimant, and the Claimant could have blocked further contact. The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR did not justify an injunction at this stage, particularly as the Defendant was already subject to police bail conditions restraining the same conduct. The recusal application was dismissed as there was no real possibility of bias.

Parties
Claimant: Stephanie Rebecca Hayden; Defendant: Bronwen Dickenson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Application (return Date), Recusal Application
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed; application for recusal dismissed
Legal Topics
Harassment, Misuse of Private Information, Defamation, Interim Injunctions, Spent Convictions, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Recusal of Judge
Tort Media Law Privacy Law Harassment Misuse of Private Information Defamation Interim Injunctions Spent Convictions +4 more

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 53 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Rebecca Hayden

Claimant

Bronwen Dickenson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Injunction Application (return Date), Recusal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's online publications amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether publication of the Claimant's spent conviction constitutes misuse of private information
  3. 3 Whether an interim injunction restraining publication is necessary and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to demonstrate that the Defendant's conduct crossed the threshold for harassment or that an interim injunction was necessary or proportionate. The majority of the Defendant's posts were not targeted at the Claimant, and the Claimant could have blocked further contact. The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR did not justify an injunction at this stage, particularly as the Defendant was already subject to police bail conditions restraining the same conduct. The recusal application was dismissed as there was no real possibility of bias.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed; application for recusal dismissed