Allen v London Borough of Lambeth

Repeated and misconceived litigation is not automatically harassment. A single unsuccessful claim brought in good faith will not ordinarily amount to harassment. However, repeated claims by the same claimant against the same defendant, each advancing the same bad point, may be capable of constituting harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The question is fact-sensitive. Alternative remedies do not by themselves prevent a civil claim under the Act.

The claimant, a long-standing tenant of the respondent local authority, alleged that the authority had brought five sets of possession proceedings against him, repeatedly advancing the same unsuccessful argument about the method of paying rent. He claimed that the repeated proceedings became an abuse of process and harassment under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

A deputy district judge struck out the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. His Honour Judge Gibson upheld that decision on 8 January 2008. Permission to appeal was refused on paper, but the renewed application raised whether the proposed second appeal crossed the CPR Part 52.13 threshold and whether the claim was capable of being arguable.

1. Permission granted. The proposed second appeal crossed the CPR Part 52.13 threshold because the novelty of the issue provided a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to consider whether the claim should proceed to trial.
2. On a strike-out application, the relevant question was whether a reasonable person could think that the alleged course of conduct amounted to or involved harassment under section 1(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The question was not whether harassment had already been established.
3. A claim brought in good faith which proved unsuccessful would not ordinarily amount to harassment. The position could differ where the same claimant brought repeated claims against the same defendant, each raising the same bad point. Such conduct was arguably vexatious and could be capable of constituting harassment.
4. The availability of other remedies did not itself prevent a harassment claim. The issue would require a fact-sensitive assessment at trial. The claimant’s arguments under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 did not independently justify allowing the claim to proceed.

Order: application granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 19 June 2008, permission to appeal was granted on renewal.
2. Lambeth County Court: Deputy District Judge Hayward struck out the claim on 31 August 2007.
3. Lambeth County Court on appeal: His Honour Judge Gibson upheld the strike-out order on 8 January 2008.
4. Permission application: Sir John Chadwick refused permission on the papers on 30 April 2008. The renewed application was granted.