Pattinson v Winsor [2024] EWHC 230 (KB) (06 February 2024)

Pattinson v Winsor [2024] EWHC 230 (KB) (06 February 2024)

The Defendant's repeated, baseless, and distressing communications to the Claimant, his wife, and third parties amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The requirements for granting an interim injunction without notice are satisfied due to compelling reasons for not giving notice, and the Claimant is likely to succeed at trial. Damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience strongly favours the Claimant.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 230 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Timothy John Hull Pattinson; Defendant: Robert Ian Winsor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Without Notice Interim Injunction Hearing
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Freedom of Expression, Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Harassment Human Rights Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Freedom of Expression Section 12 Human Rights Act 1998 Balance of Convenience

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

Parties

Timothy John Hull Pattinson

Claimant

Robert Ian Winsor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Without Notice Interim Injunction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunction should be granted without notice to restrain alleged harassment
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 12 Human Rights Act 1998 are satisfied for relief affecting freedom of expression

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's repeated, baseless, and distressing communications to the Claimant, his wife, and third parties amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The requirements for granting an interim injunction without notice are satisfied due to compelling reasons for not giving notice, and the Claimant is likely to succeed at trial. Damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience strongly favours the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from sending further emails or otherwise publishing the allegations against the Claimant pending return date
  • Return date set for two weeks for Defendant to challenge continuation of the order