header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 March 2009 / Spencer Keen
Issue: 7361 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Crossing the Line

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Should a criminal yardstick be used to judge civil harassment claims? Spencer Keen reports

* * * * * *

In Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46, [2009] All ER (D) 80 (Feb) the Court of Appeal revisited the thorny issue of when conduct could be said to cross the line between “the regrettable and the unacceptable” for the purposes of PHA 1997.

This terminology stems from Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2006] 4 All ER 395, in which the House of Lords held that employers could be liable for harassment committed by their employees in breach of PHA 1997.

Since this decision, the number of harassment claims against employers has increased dramatically and the courts have been called upon to identify the blurred line between the sort of regrettable conduct that each of us is subjected to from time to time and unacceptable conduct which PHA 1997 prohibits. Some of the attempts to define the line between regrettable and unacceptable conduct in

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
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll