Neocleous v Jones [2011] EWHC 3459 (QB) (21 December 2011)

Neocleous v Jones [2011] EWHC 3459 (QB) (21 December 2011)

The defendant's application for interim relief failed due to lack of credible evidence and procedural defects, while the claimants established a clear course of conduct by the defendant amounting to harassment, justifying the grant of injunctive relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3459
Parties
Claimant: Neoclis Neocleous; Claimant: Edwin Coe LLP; Claimant: David Greene (as representative for the members and employees of Edwin Coe LLP); Defendant: Stephen Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment Injunction and Cross Applications / Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed as totally without merit; claimants' application for interim injunctive relief granted.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Article 10 ECHR, Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Harassment Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Article 10 ECHR Civil Restraint Orders +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neoclis Neocleous

Claimant

Edwin Coe LLP

Claimant

David Greene (as representative for the members and employees of Edwin Coe LLP)

Claimant

Stephen Jones

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment Injunction and Cross Applications / Interlocutory Applications for Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain harassment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's application for relief and to strike out the claim was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's application for interim relief failed due to lack of credible evidence and procedural defects, while the claimants established a clear course of conduct by the defendant amounting to harassment, justifying the grant of injunctive relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application dismissed as totally without merit; claimants' application for interim injunctive relief granted.

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining the defendant from harassing the claimants and their clients.
  • Defendant's application for injunction, civil restraint order, and strike out dismissed.