Khan (formerly JMO) v Khan (formerly KTA) [2018] EWHC 241 (QB) (15 February 2018)

Khan (formerly JMO) v Khan (formerly KTA) [2018] EWHC 241 (QB) (15 February 2018)

The Claimant has not demonstrated, on the evidence available at the interim stage, that he is more likely than not to succeed at trial in establishing that the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment justifying the grant of an injunction restraining publication. The proposed terms of the injunction are overly broad, disproportionate, and unjustified given the Defendant's right to freedom of expression. The evidence is insufficient, as only one side of the correspondence is available, and the conduct may form part of a dialogue rather than unilateral harassment.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 241
Parties
Claimant: Shakil Khan; Defendant: Tanweer Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Harassment Claim Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Harassment, Freedom of Expression, Interim Injunctions, Spent Convictions, Data Protection
Civil Law Human Rights Media Law Harassment Freedom of Expression Interim Injunctions Spent Convictions Data Protection

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

Parties

Shakil Khan

Claimant

Tanweer Khan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Harassment Claim Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's course of conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is likely to succeed at trial for an injunction restraining publication under s.12 Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the proposed injunction terms are proportionate and justified given Article 10 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant has not demonstrated, on the evidence available at the interim stage, that he is more likely than not to succeed at trial in establishing that the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment justifying the grant of an injunction restraining publication. The proposed terms of the injunction are overly broad, disproportionate, and unjustified given the Defendant's right to freedom of expression. The evidence is insufficient, as only one side of the correspondence is available, and the conduct may form part of a dialogue rather than unilateral harassment.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused