APW v WPA [2012] EWHC 3151 (QB) (08 November 2012)

APW v WPA [2012] EWHC 3151 (QB) (08 November 2012)

The Claimant established an arguable case of distress and potential harassment, but the evidence did not justify the grant of an injunction as a necessary or proportionate measure at this stage. Damages would be an adequate remedy if future harassment occurred. The application for an injunction was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3151
Parties
Claimant: APW; Defendant: WPA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Application, Return Date
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Harassment, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Private Information, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Harassment Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Private Information Freedom of Expression

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APW

Claimant

WPA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Injunction Application, Return Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain harassment and publication of private information
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant established an arguable case of distress and potential harassment, but the evidence did not justify the grant of an injunction as a necessary or proportionate measure at this stage. Damages would be an adequate remedy if future harassment occurred. The application for an injunction was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed