James Fish v Terry Barker

James Fish v Terry Barker

The Defendant's course of conduct, including threats of violence and abusive social media posts, constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The conduct was deliberate, persistent, and caused serious alarm and distress. An interim injunction restraining contact, communication, and comment about the Claimant, his business interests, or associates is necessary and proportionate, notwithstanding the impact on freedom of expression. The order must include a return date as a safeguard for the litigant in person. Costs are reserved to the return date judge as substantive merits are not yet determined.

Parties
Claimant: Mr James Fish; Defendant: Mr Terry Barker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment (interim Injunction) / Interim Injunction Application; Order Granted Pending Return Date
Outcome
Interim injunction granted pending return date; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Freedom of Expression, Civil Procedure, Costs
Civil Law Tort Law Harassment Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Freedom of Expression Civil Procedure Costs

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr James Fish

Claimant

Mr Terry Barker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment (interim Injunction) / Interim Injunction Application; Order Granted Pending Return Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounted 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 include a return date

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's course of conduct, including threats of violence and abusive social media posts, constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The conduct was deliberate, persistent, and caused serious alarm and distress. An interim injunction restraining contact, communication, and comment about the Claimant, his business interests, or associates is necessary and proportionate, notwithstanding the impact on freedom of expression. The order must include a return date as a safeguard for the litigant in person. Costs are reserved to the return date judge as substantive merits are not yet determined.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted pending return date; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Defendant forbidden from contacting or approaching Claimant or his family by any means, including social media, or attending their home or work addresses.
  • Defendant forbidden from using social media to contact, communicate with, or comment about the Claimant, his business interests, or associates.