header-logo header-logo

Harassment

21 July 2011
Issue: 7475 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Jones and another v Ruth and another [2011] EWCA Civ 804, [2011] All ER (D) 112 (Jul)

Foreseeability of the injury or loss sustained by a claimant in a case of harassment was not an essential element in the cause of action. Conduct of the kind described in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 1 was actionable under s 3 in respect of anxiety or injury caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment. There was nothing in the statutory language to import an additional requirement of foreseeability. Nor was the foreseeability of damage the gist of the tort.

Section 1 was concerned with deliberate conduct of a kind which the defendant knew or ought to have known would amount to harassment of the claimant. Once that was proved the defendant was responsible in damages for the injury and loss which flow from that conduct. There was nothing in the nature of the cause of action which called for further qualification in order to give effect to the obvious policy objectives of the

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll