Martin Hibbert & Anor v Richard D Hall

Martin Hibbert & Anor v Richard D Hall

The defendant's persistent publication of false allegations, intrusive analysis, and surreptitious filming of a vulnerable claimant constituted a negligent and reckless abuse of media freedom, amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The conduct was oppressive, unreasonable, and foreseeably caused alarm and distress. The defendant ought to have known his actions amounted to harassment. Defences of prevention or detection of crime and reasonableness failed. The claimants’ cause of action in harassment is fully made out and must succeed.

Parties
Claimant: Martin Hibbert; Claimant: Eve Hibbert (by her mother and litigation friend Sarah Gillbard); Defendant: Richard D Hall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim for harassment succeeded; data protection claim reserved for further submissions.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Data Protection, Defamation, Public Interest, Vulnerability, Media Law
Tort Data Protection Human Rights Harassment Freedom of Expression Privacy Defamation Public Interest +2 more

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Hibbert

Claimant

Eve Hibbert (by her mother and litigation friend Sarah Gillbard)

Claimant

Richard D Hall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant pursued a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendant knew or ought to have known that such conduct amounted to harassment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's persistent publication of false allegations, intrusive analysis, and surreptitious filming of a vulnerable claimant constituted a negligent and reckless abuse of media freedom, amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The conduct was oppressive, unreasonable, and foreseeably caused alarm and distress. The defendant ought to have known his actions amounted to harassment. Defences of prevention or detection of crime and reasonableness failed. The claimants’ cause of action in harassment is fully made out and must succeed.

Court Disposition

Claim for harassment succeeded; data protection claim reserved for further submissions.

Orders

  • Defendant found liable for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  • Relief and remedies to be determined following further submissions