header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 October 2007 / Simon Cheetham KC , Harriet Bowtell , Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Bully boys

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The law on harassment at work should be made more coherent say Stephen Levinson, Harriet Bowtell and Simon Cheetham

The law relating to harassment at work—bullying by another name—is in a shambles. The present situation is that any employee protected by discrimination legislation is legally protected from harassment and has a remedy in the employment tribunal. The question arises why only these employees should deserve protection. 

 In its recent consultation paper, A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain, the government gave voice to a pious hope that the law relating to harassment should be as coherent as possible. However, it gave no real commitment to resolve matters.

The consultation paper attempted to draw a distinction in relation to employees between the discrimination legislation and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) on the basis that the latter is designed to combat stalkers. This is now an entirely unreal distinction, as the House of Lords made abundantly clear in Majrowski v Guy’s and St

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll