Howlett v Holding [2006] EWHC 41 (QB) (25 January 2006)

Howlett v Holding [2006] EWHC 41 (QB) (25 January 2006)

The defendant's campaign of aerial harassment and surveillance constituted a persistent course of conduct causing distress and anxiety, falling within the scope of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defendant's Article 10 right to free expression did not outweigh the claimant's Article 8...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 41 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jenifer Howlett; Defendant: Terry Holding
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Harassment Claim Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (cpr Part 8) / Post Hearing, Reasons for Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted restraining harassment and surveillance by the defendant.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Surveillance, Defamation
Civil Law Human Rights Tort Harassment Privacy Freedom of Expression Surveillance Defamation

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenifer Howlett

Claimant

Terry Holding

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Harassment Claim Under Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (cpr Part 8) / Post Hearing, Reasons for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's Article 10 ECHR right to free expression outweighs the claimant's Article 8 ECHR right to privacy
  3. 3 Whether surveillance by the defendant is lawful and reasonable under s.1(3) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's campaign of aerial harassment and surveillance constituted a persistent course of conduct causing distress and anxiety, falling within the scope of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defendant's Article 10 right to free expression did not outweigh the claimant's Article 8 right to privacy and psychological integrity. The surveillance was neither justified nor reasonable under s.1(3) of the Act, and the claimant was entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted restraining harassment and surveillance by the defendant.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from flying banners with abusive messages addressed to or referring to the claimant.
  • Defendant restrained from dropping leaflets over areas relating to the claimant.