Mitton & Ors v Benefield & Anor [2011] EWHC 2098 (QB) (01 August 2011)

Mitton & Ors v Benefield & Anor [2011] EWHC 2098 (QB) (01 August 2011)

The evidence did not establish that the Defendants harassed the Claimants; rather, the Claimants, particularly Mr Wilding-Mitton, engaged in a course of conduct amounting to harassment of the Defendants, crossing the threshold for criminal liability under the Act. No defence under section 1(3) was made out. The Defendants' counterclaim for harassment succeeded; the Claimants' claim failed.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2098
Parties
Claimant: Robin Wilding-Mitton, Celia Wilding-Mitton, Jacob Wilding-Mitton, Josephine Wilding-Mitton; Defendant: Gary Benefield, Ruma Benefield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Harassment, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Neighbour Disputes, Counterclaim, Damages
Civil Law Tort Law Harassment Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Neighbour Disputes Counterclaim Damages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Wilding-Mitton, Celia Wilding-Mitton, Jacob Wilding-Mitton, Josephine Wilding-Mitton

Claimant

Gary Benefield, Ruma Benefield

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the Defendants amounted to harassment of the Claimants under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Claimants, particularly Mr Wilding-Mitton, amounted to harassment of the Defendants under the same Act
  3. 3 Whether any defences under section 1(3) of the Act applied

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the Defendants harassed the Claimants; rather, the Claimants, particularly Mr Wilding-Mitton, engaged in a course of conduct amounting to harassment of the Defendants, crossing the threshold for criminal liability under the Act. No defence under section 1(3) was made out. The Defendants' counterclaim for harassment succeeded; the Claimants' claim failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Claim by the Claimants dismissed
  • Counterclaim by the Defendants for harassment allowed