Harassment Claimant Granted Permanent Injunction & Awarded Damages For Distress

Hodson and another v Person Unknown A and others [2022] EWHC 1960 (QB)

Case background

The Claimants in this case are Thomas Hodson (First Claimant), and his company, Hodson Developments Limited (Second Claimant). The Second Claimant entered into three sub-contracts with Darby Groundworks Limited (Fifth Defendant) to carry out the groundwork for newbuild housing. A dispute arose between the parties in relation to the sub-contracts which resulted in the Second Claimant holding back some of the funds due to be paid to the Fifth Defendant.

In March 2021, the Second Claimant started to receive a number of threatening telephone calls and voicemails. The Second Claimant believed them to be from David Darby (Third Defendant) and Laurence Darby (Fourth Defendant), the directors and owners of the Fifth Defendant. The Claimants brought a claim against the Defendants pursuant to Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PFHA) seeking final injunctions and damages against the Defendants.

Between March and April 2021, the First Claimant received many telephone calls and voicemails. In a call on 16 May 2021, the Caller said to the First Claimant:

In a voicemail on 30 March 2021, the Caller said:

Similar messages continued throughout March and April 2021.

On 12 April 2021, the Claimants’ solicitor, Keystone Law, prepared and sent a pre-action letter to the Fourth and Fifth Defendants. After receiving no response from the Defendants, Keystone Law proceeded to issue the claim pursuant to Section 3 of PFHA and they also applied for an interim injunction.

On 23 April 2021, a remote inter-partes hearing took place to decide whether an interim injunction should be granted. The Defendants did not oppose the application and an interim injunction was granted. The interim injunction included a carve-out to allow the parties to send lawful communication through their legal representatives in relation to the contract dispute. The Defendants were aware of the interim injunction but were not formally served with a copy of it until 14:35 on 27 April 2021.

On 26 April 2021, the Second Claimant received a voicemail in which the call said:

This resulted in Keystone Law sending a text message to the three mobile phone numbers used to contact the Second Claimant. Within the text message, Keystone Law said:

Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 provides:

For the purposes of Section 1(1)(b), the Court looks at whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct amounts to harassment.

Judgment

The Judge referred to the case of Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17 in which Lord Sumption defined harassment as:

Counsel on behalf of the Defendants submitted that the First Claimant had concocted the circumstances behind the harassment claim in an attempt to avoid the debt owed to the Defendants.

The Judge considered the evidence given by the parties in their witness testimony. The Judge referred to the First Claimant’s immediate reaction after receiving the calls, namely, to call the police, instruct solicitors and hire security. The Judge found this reaction to be consistent with somebody who was genuinely fearful and not someone who had simply concocted the calls for personal gain. The Judge was therefore satisfied that the First Claimant was being truthful in relation to the calls. The Judge further commented that he found it:

The Judge granted the Claimants a permanent injunction, commenting:

The Judge also found that the First Claimant would be entitled to general damages for distress, although it was made clear that he would not be entitled to recover any damages as a proxy for his family’s distress.

When quantifying the level of damages, the Judge referred to the factually similar case of S&D Property Investments Ltd v Nisbet [2009] EWHC (Ch). In this case, the Claimant was awarded £7,000 in compensation for harassment carried out in connection with the non-payment of a debt.

The Judge found that the conduct had been more serious in this case than in the case of S&D Property Investments Ltd and awarded the First Claimant £11,500 for distress and injury to feelings. The Judge also awarded special damages in relation to the security company’s charges. The Judge commented that although these were on the expensive side, in the circumstances, the First Claimant would not be required to shop around and given the nature of the threats, 24-hour security was justified.

Comment

This case is a useful reminder of the test that will need to be applied by the court when considering a claim under the PFHA. It is also a helpful insight into the level of damages awarded by the court in cases such as this.