ALBERT COURT (WESTMINSTER) MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD & Ors v MARCEL NASSER FETAIMIA & Anor

ALBERT COURT (WESTMINSTER) MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD & Ors v MARCEL NASSER FETAIMIA & Anor

The Defendants engaged in a sustained course of conduct amounting to harassment under PFHA 1997, including threats, intimidation, false allegations, and abusive behaviour towards protected persons. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the Claimants' case. The Defendants knew or ought to have known their conduct amounted to harassment. Injunctive relief is justified and proportionate.

Parties
Claimant: Albert Court (Westminster) Management Company Ltd; Claimant: Graeme Phillip Aarons; Claimant: Kerry Michael Rubie; Claimant: Timothy Douglas Murray; Claimant: Soussi Zarifeh Kerman; Claimant: Timothy Ian Greenwood; Defendant: Marcel Nasser Fetaimia; Defendant: Victoria Fetaimia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (part 8 Claim) / Final Judgment and Order
Outcome
Claim allowed. Injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Civil Procedure Tort Law Harassment Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Burden of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Court (Westminster) Management Company Ltd

Claimant

Graeme Phillip Aarons

Claimant

Kerry Michael Rubie

Claimant

Timothy Douglas Murray

Claimant

Soussi Zarifeh Kerman

Claimant

Timothy Ian Greenwood

Claimant

Marcel Nasser Fetaimia

Defendant

Victoria Fetaimia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (part 8 Claim) / Final Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants' conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants are entitled to injunctive relief
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' actions were reasonable or justified under section 1(3)(c) PFHA 1997

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants engaged in a sustained course of conduct amounting to harassment under PFHA 1997, including threats, intimidation, false allegations, and abusive behaviour towards protected persons. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the Claimants' case. The Defendants knew or ought to have known their conduct amounted to harassment. Injunctive relief is justified and proportionate.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Injunction granted.

Orders

  • Defendants prohibited from harassing, threatening, intimidating, or abusing protected persons as defined in Schedule 1.
  • Defendants prohibited from making threats, requests for private information, allegations of wrongdoing, or recordings without consent, as specified in the order.