Titan v Okunola: Court’s inherent jurisdiction and injunctive relief in harassment cases

Background

The Claimants had dismissed the Defendant from her employment. Consequently, the Defendant brought numerous unsuccessful Employment Tribunal claims against Titan. As these attempts failed, she initiated what she described as “a plan for vengeance” sending hundreds of abusive messages to the Claimant and their legal representatives, Quinn Emanual Urquhart & Sullivan (Quinn Emanual).

The Claimant therefore brought a pre-action injunction against the Defendant, restraining her from harassing members of staff. A trial date was set, however, shortly before the trial, the Claimant also applied for another injunction prohibiting the Defendant from sending abusive or grossly offensive communications to or about the legal representatives during the litigation.

The High Court judge refused that further injunction application. It was held that the Claimant was, in substance, seeking relief to protect the legal representatives, not itself. Since Quinn Emanuel had not brought a claim despite having a credible basis for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA), the judge concluded that there was no cause of action and that no recognised exception to the cause of action rule applied.

So what did the Court decide? Well there were several points it considered:

1. The power to grant an injunction

In modern English Law, injunctive relief does not always depend on a separate cause of action. It was perfectly clear that the court possesses an inherent common law jurisdiction to ‘protect the integrity of its process’. As a consequence, the judge did have jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining conduct capable of materially interfering with proceedings.

2. Article 10 ECHR, Section 12 HRA, Contempt and Immunity

It was accepted that communications amounting to criminal contempt would fall outside of Article 10 ECHR (the right to freedom of expression), any inference would be justified under Article 10(2) ECHR. As no contempt was alleged, the court proceeded on the basis Article 10 ECHR was applied.

Due to the fact that the injunction would have restricted the Defendant’s communications, Article 10 ECHR and therefore the safeguards in s12 of the Human Rights Act were engaged. The thing to remember here, and that was considered by the Court, was that Article 10 ECHR will not generally prevent injunctive relief where communications seriously interfered with the administration of justice.

3. Proper procedure for injunctive relief

The Claimants described the order as a final injunction and the Court held it to be an interim measure rather than it being final. Therefore, an injunction regulating conduct within litigation cannot continue once the case had concluded.

4. Discretionary Considerations in granting an injunction

The court identified four reasons why the injunction should not have been granted:

There are some practical implications of this case that should be considered. For example, this decision provides guidance for practitioners considering applications for injunctive relief in harassment. It is therefore important that your legal representatives are aware of this case.

Where the conduct is directed at legal representatives, rather than an application being brought by their client, the Court indicates that the appropriate route may lie in a direct action under the PfHA. It is important to remember that applications made by the wrong Claimant or through a procedurally impractical route risk being dismissed.

Legal practitioners should also note the guidance provided on the correct procedural framework to bring an injunction application. Even if parties label the order as ‘final’, an injunction regulating conduct within ongoing litigation is likely to be construed by the Court as an interim remedy.