Hatch v Thames Valley Police Authority & Anor

Hatch v Thames Valley Police Authority & Anor

The judge found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to a course of conduct calculated to cause alarm or distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There was no issue estoppel from the divorce proceedings, and the trial procedure was not unfair. The findings of fact were not perverse or unsupported, and there was no prospect of a successful appeal.

Parties
Applicant: John Vaughn Hatch; Respondent: Sheila Margaret Baerlein; Defendant: Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Harassment, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Unfair Trial Procedure
Civil Procedure Family Law Tort Harassment Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process Unfair Trial Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Vaughn Hatch

Applicant

Sheila Margaret Baerlein

Respondent

Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in law or procedure, including application of CPR 16(5)
  3. 3 Whether issue estoppel applied to facts established in divorce proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to a course of conduct calculated to cause alarm or distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. There was no issue estoppel from the divorce proceedings, and the trial procedure was not unfair. The findings of fact were not perverse or unsupported, and there was no prospect of a successful appeal.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • no order for costs