Howlett v Holding

Howlett v Holding

The defendant's conduct constituted a course of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, causing the claimant distress and anxiety. The balancing of Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR favoured the claimant, as the defendant's methods were disproportionate and unreasonable. The statutory defences under s.1(3) of the 1997 Act did not apply, as the surveillance was not objectively justified or reasonable. The claimant was entitled to an injunction restraining further harassment and surveillance.

Parties
Claimant: Jenifer Howlett; Defendant: Terry Holding
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment/injunction / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Injunction
Outcome
Injunction granted in favour of the claimant restraining harassment and surveillance by the defendant.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Injunctions, Surveillance, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Balancing of Convention Rights
Civil Law Human Rights Law Tort Law Harassment Injunctions Surveillance Freedom of Expression Privacy +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenifer Howlett

Claimant

Terry Holding

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment/injunction / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's Article 10 right to freedom of expression outweighs the claimant's Article 8 right to privacy
  3. 3 Whether surveillance by the defendant was reasonable or justified under statutory defences

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct constituted a course of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, causing the claimant distress and anxiety. The balancing of Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR favoured the claimant, as the defendant's methods were disproportionate and unreasonable. The statutory defences under s.1(3) of the 1997 Act did not apply, as the surveillance was not objectively justified or reasonable. The claimant was entitled to an injunction restraining further harassment and surveillance.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted in favour of the claimant restraining harassment and surveillance by the defendant.

Orders

  • The defendant is restrained by injunction from harassing the claimant by aerial banners, leaflets, or surveillance.
  • The defendant must cease all surveillance of the claimant.