Allen v London Borough of Southwark

Repeated legal proceedings may form a course of conduct for the purposes of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A claim is arguable where a reasonable person, with the same information, could regard the repeated proceedings and associated demands as oppressive and unacceptable, rather than merely incompetent or unreasonable. A court should strike out unmeritorious harassment claims at an early stage. It should not strike out a claim where the pleaded history and documents arguably show harassment and the alleged harasser has provided no evidential explanation for its conduct. The claim must then be tried.

The appellant was a secure tenant of the respondent council. He brought a civil claim for harassment after the council issued five sets of possession proceedings for rent arrears and repeatedly required him to pay rent at a post office rather than at the Leathermarket Housing Office.

The Deputy District Judge struck out the claim, and HHJ Gibson upheld that decision at Lambeth County Court. The material history included the dismissal of earlier possession claims because the council had not established a valid variation of the rent-payment arrangements, followed by further demands and a further possession claim.

The central issue was whether that sequence could arguably amount to harassment and therefore required a trial.

Appeal allowed. Longmore LJ held that the harassment claim had a reasonable prospect of success and should not have been struck out. Arden LJ and Pill LJ agreed that the appeal should be allowed.

1. A claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires a course of conduct, conduct amounting to harassment, and knowledge or constructive knowledge that it amounts to harassment. The statutory reference to alarm or distress does not make every upsetting act harassment. The conduct must cross the boundary into conduct that is oppressive and unreasonable or unacceptable. The court applied the guidance in Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233 and Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224.

2. The requirement of a course of conduct was met because there had been at least two relevant proceedings. The first two possession claims had little relevance. However, the third, fourth and fifth claims, the demands for payment elsewhere, and the council’s knowledge that no notice varying the tenancy terms had been proved, could arguably be viewed as a single oppressive course of conduct.

3. The council accepted that there was a contractual term, or at least an express representation, permitting payment at the housing office. The court treated compliance with the notice requirements of section 103 of the Housing Act 1985 as necessary before that arrangement could be varied. On the material before it, the council had not explained how its later demands and possession proceedings were justified. Counsel’s assertion that the conduct was merely negligent, incompetent or vexatious could not resolve that evidential issue on a strike-out application.

4. The court did not decide whether the conduct ultimately was harassment. It held only that a reasonable person could arguably reach that conclusion and that the matter had to be tried. Arden LJ added that the boundary between unreasonable and oppressive conduct depends on context, and doubted whether harassment necessarily requires conduct likely to cause alarm or distress.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and restored the harassment claim for trial: [2008] EWCA Civ 1478.
• Lambeth County Court: HHJ Gibson upheld the Deputy District Judge’s strike-out of the claim for want of a reasonable cause of action.
• Lambeth County Court: Deputy District Judge Hayward struck out the civil harassment proceedings.