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. The Defendant's conduct, even if proved, did not amount to harassment within the meaning of the Act, and damages would be an adequate remedy if future harassment occurred.
- Citation
- [2012] EWHC 3151 (QB)
- 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
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
APW
Claimant
WPA
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Application, Return Date
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining harassment and publication of private information
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an injunction
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. The Defendant's conduct, even if proved, did not amount to harassment within the meaning of the Act, and damages would be an adequate remedy if future harassment occurred.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment