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

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

Mr Jones' application for interim relief fails due to lack of evidence and procedural defects; claimants are entitled to an injunction restraining Mr Jones from harassment, as his conduct fulfills statutory criteria and no valid defence applies.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3459 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Neoclis Neocleous; Defendant: Stephen Jones; Claimant: Edwin Coe LLP; Claimant: David Greene (as representative for the members and employees of Edwin Coe LLP)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Harassment Injunction and Civil Restraint Order Applications / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Mr Jones' application for interim relief rejected as totally without merit; claimants' application for injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Civil Restraint Orders, Protection From Harassment Act, Article 10 ECHR, Representative Actions
Civil Procedure Harassment Human Rights Interim Injunctions Civil Restraint Orders Protection From Harassment Act Article 10 ECHR Representative Actions

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neoclis Neocleous

Claimant

Stephen Jones

Defendant

Edwin Coe LLP

Claimant

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

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Harassment Injunction and Civil Restraint Order Applications / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Jones should be granted an injunction against Edwin Coe LLP and Neocleous
  2. 2 Whether Neocleous' claim should be struck out for abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to an injunction restraining Mr Jones from harassment

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Jones' application for interim relief fails due to lack of evidence and procedural defects; claimants are entitled to an injunction restraining Mr Jones from harassment, as his conduct fulfills statutory criteria and no valid defence applies.

Court Disposition

Mr Jones' application for interim relief rejected as totally without merit; claimants' application for injunction granted.

Orders

  • Injunction granted restraining Mr Jones from harassing claimants and their clients.
  • Mr Jones' application for civil restraint order and strike out dismissed.