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 likely to succeed at trial in establishing that the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The evidence shows a family dispute with persistent communications, but the threshold for harassment—oppressive and unacceptable conduct—has not been clearly crossed, particularly given the context, the Defendant's justification, and the lack of substantive response from the Claimant. The proposed injunction would be a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the Defendant's Article 10 rights.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 241 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Shakil Khan; Defendant: Tanweer Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment (interim Injunction) / Interim Application for Injunction Prior to Service of Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Article 10 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR
Civil Law Tort Law Human Rights Harassment Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Article 10 ECHR +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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shakil Khan

Claimant

Tanweer Khan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment (interim Injunction) / Interim Application for Injunction Prior to Service of Particulars of Claim

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 in establishing entitlement to an injunction restraining publication
  3. 3 Whether the proposed injunction is a proportionate and necessary interference with the Defendant's Article 10 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant has not demonstrated, on the evidence available at the interim stage, that he is likely to succeed at trial in establishing that the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The evidence shows a family dispute with persistent communications, but the threshold for harassment—oppressive and unacceptable conduct—has not been clearly crossed, particularly given the context, the Defendant's justification, and the lack of substantive response from the Claimant. The proposed injunction would be a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the Defendant's Article 10 rights.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused