Fish v Barker [2021] EWHC 604 (QB) (15 March 2021)

Fish v Barker [2021] EWHC 604 (QB) (15 March 2021)

The Defendant's conduct constituted a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive behaviour, including threats of violence and abusive social media posts, which crossed the threshold for harassment under the 1997 Act. The Claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 604 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr James Fish; Defendant: Mr Terry Barker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Interim Relief Prior to Trial, With Return Date Set
Outcome
Interim injunction granted with return date; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Human Rights Act 1998, Costs in Interim Applications
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Harassment Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Human Rights Act 1998 +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr James Fish

Claimant

Mr Terry Barker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (civil) / Interim Relief Prior to Trial, With Return Date Set

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction restraining contact and comment is justified and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the order should restrict freedom of expression under section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's conduct constituted a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive behaviour, including threats of violence and abusive social media posts, which crossed the threshold for harassment under the 1997 Act. The Claimant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed, justifying an interim injunction restraining contact and comment, including on social media. The order is necessary and proportionate, and a return date is retained as a safeguard for the litigant in person. Costs are reserved as the substantive merits have not been determined.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted with return date; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Defendant forbidden from contacting the Claimant or his family by any means or approaching within 100 metres of them.
  • Defendant forbidden from using social media to contact, communicate with, or comment about the Claimant, his business interests, or associates.