header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 March 2013
Issue: 7554 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Tort—Harassment—Defence

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17, [2013] All ER (D) 190 (Mar)

Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger P, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Reed SCJJ, 20 March 2013

To establish the defence of having been engaged in a course of conduct pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, pursuant to s 1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997), the test is that of rationality on the part of the alleged harasser.

Robin Allen QC and Akua Reindorf (instructed by Ginn & Co) for the claimant. Clive Wolman for the defendant.

In late 2003, the defendant embarked on a personal vendetta against the claimant. He alleged that the claimant’s management of certain companies had been characterised by fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion, and sent much correspondence to public authorities including the police. The claimant issued proceedings seeking damages for harassment and for an injunction to restrain its continuance. The judge found that the defendant’s words and acts had constituted harassment under s 7(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

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