Hayes v Willoughby

Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

1. 1 What is the correct construction of Section 1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 regarding the defence of preventing or detecting crime?
2. 2 Whether the course of conduct pursued by the respondent was protected under Section 1(3)(a) or (c) of the Act?
3. 3 Whether incidents not for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime can be separated from the overall campaign for liability purposes?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 only provides a defence if the sole purpose of the course of conduct is preventing or detecting crime. Where the conduct is unreasonable, obsessive, or has mixed purposes, the defence does not apply. The respondent's campaign, after authorities found no wrongdoing, became unreasonable and obsessive, and thus was not protected by s.1(3)(a) or s.1(3)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

• Injunction granted restraining the respondent from contacting or communicating directly or indirectly with Timothy Hayes, Margaret Hayes, their children, or any third party regarding them or their companies.
• Respondent prohibited from collecting any information relating to the appellants or their companies.