Harassment cases, by their nature, usually involve factual backgrounds that require oral evidence at trial before a judge can make a determination as to whether the conduct complained of amounts to harassment.
Notwithstanding the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA) providing a route for people found guilty of harassment to be liable both criminally and civilly, to be successful in civil proceedings for harassment requires a Claimant to prove that the Defendant’s conduct is sufficiently serious that it could attract criminal liability. This in turn requires the Courts to ensure that the right to a fair trial is properly applied in a harassment case.
The net effect of the above is that it is exceptionally rare for summary judgment (i.e. judgment at an early stage of proceedings in a party’s favour without the need for a trial to take place) to be granted in harassment proceedings. One such rare case is Pattinson v Winsor [2024].
Pattinson v Winsor [2024] EWHC 606 (KB)
Case background
The dispute between Timothy John Hull Pattinson (Claimant) and Robert Ian Winsor (Defendant) arises from a deeply contentious family background, further complicated by allegations of criminal misconduct and harassment. The Claimant, a District Judge, is married to the Defendant’s sister, Juliet, making the two men brothers-in-law. The case’s origins can be traced back to two separate sets of litigation involving the Defendant:
1. The Will proceedings in 2023: After the death of the Defendant’s mother, a dispute arose over the validity of her Will. The Claimant and his wife, Juliet, were named as executors. The Defendant contested the Will, alleging fraudulent calumny and undue influence. These claims were ultimately dismissed by the Court, which upheld the Will’s validity and issued a civil restraint order against the Defendant for unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.
2. Bankruptcy proceedings: The Defendant’s litigation history includes a series of disputes dating back to 2010, which resulted in his bankruptcy and further civil restraint orders. The Defendant challenged the bankruptcy and alleged that the Claimant had engaged in fraudulent activities related to the distribution of assets from the bankruptcy estate.
Legal proceedings and claims
The harassment claim was initiated, focusing on a series of emails sent by the Defendant. These emails, sent to various judicial officers and other individuals, accused the Claimant of serious misconduct, including fraud, theft, forgery, money laundering, and abuse of judicial position. The emails were seen as an attempt to malign the Claimant’s reputation and cause him distress by repeatedly broadcasting these allegations to his professional peers.
The Claimant sought summary judgment and/or to strike out the Defendant’s ‘defence’ under CPR 3.4(2). He also applied for a final injunction to prevent the Defendant from continuing his campaign of harassment.
Key legal issues and the Court’s analysis
1. Use of Part 8 procedure: The Claimant initially used the Part 8 procedure for this harassment claim, which is typically reserved for cases where there are no substantial disputes of fact. The Court noted that harassment claims involving publication (via media, online, or speech) should be brought under Part 7, not Part 8. However, the Court found that using Part 8 in this case did not cause any unfairness to the Defendant since the claims were clearly articulated, and he had ample opportunity to respond.
2. Summary judgment for harassment: The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Claimant. The Defendant’s emails were deemed a “course of conduct” that amounted to harassment, fulfilling the requirements under the PfHA. The Court emphasised that harassment could occur through communications to third parties, not just direct communications with the victim. The Defendant’s conduct was described as persistent, deliberate, oppressive, and likely to cause alarm and distress.
3. Truth is not a defence to harassment: The Court reiterated that truth is not a defence to a harassment claim. Even if the Defendant believed his allegations were true, the appropriate channels would have been to report them to the police or the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, not to indiscriminately send emails to a wide audience. The Court concluded that the Defendant’s actions were irrational and without any realistic basis for the allegations.
4. Defences under PfHA: The Defendant attempted to invoke a defence under the PfHA claiming his actions were for the prevention or detection of crime. However, the Court found no rational basis for this defence, citing Hayes v Willoughby [2013], which requires a rational connection between the alleged harassing conduct and the prevention or detection of crime.
5. Absence of the defendant and Court’s decision: The Defendant did not appear at the hearing, despite being informed. The Court proceeded with the hearing based on written submissions and concluded that the Defendant’s conduct was clearly calculated to cause distress to the Claimant. Consequently, a final injunction was granted, mirroring the terms of the interim order but with minor modifications.
Comment
The decision in Pattinson v Winsor underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individuals from harassment, especially when it involves baseless allegations that harm a person’s reputation and well-being. The ruling reinforces that even within family disputes, there are boundaries of acceptable behaviour and the Courts will act decisively to enforce them. For legal practitioners and litigants, the case also highlights the importance of adherence to procedural rules and the careful crafting of claims and defences.
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal/financial advice. Please contact us for advice tailored to your specific position. Some of the content presented on our website has been generated with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We ensure that all AI-generated content meets our high standards for accuracy and relevance.
