Dowson & Ors v Northumbria Police

Amendments to pleadings should generally be permitted where they clarify the real dispute, subject to costs and any limitation issue. After expiry of limitation, a new claim may be added only where it arises from the same or substantially the same facts as an existing claim. A harassment claim under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 requires a course of conduct on at least two occasions which is sufficiently grave, genuinely oppressive and unreasonable, targeted at the claimant, and calculated to cause alarm or distress. Differences about work methods, isolated incidents, or conduct directed at another person will not ordinarily satisfy those requirements. Claims may be struck out or summarily dismissed where, even assuming the pleaded facts, they have no real prospect of success.

Nine linked police officers brought claims against the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, alleging that Detective Chief Inspector Pallas had harassed them and that the defendant was vicariously liable.

The court considered objections to amendments said to introduce new, limitation-barred causes of action. It also determined applications under CPR 3.4 and CPR 24.2 to strike out or obtain summary judgment against the claims of Detective Constables Bloomfield, Combe and Miller. The central issues were whether the amendments arose from the same or substantially the same facts, and whether the three claims disclosed an arguable course of conduct amounting to harassment.

1. Most proposed amendments were allowed, subject to the usual order for costs. The amendments concerning Dowson’s paragraph 27 and Stewart’s paragraph 19 were refused because they introduced new claims outside the limitation period and did not arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the existing pleadings. Stewart’s paragraph 23 required further particulars before permission could be granted.

2. Under CPR 17.4, the court must first determine whether an amendment adds a new claim. If it does, the court must then ask whether it arises from the same or substantially the same facts as a claim already pursued. If it does not, the court has no discretion to permit the amendment. The analysis should be practical and informed by the overriding objective, rather than excessively legalistic.

3. For harassment, the pleaded conduct must arguably be sufficiently grave to sustain criminal liability, genuinely offensive, oppressive and unacceptable. Context is important. The conduct must be targeted at the claimant and calculated to produce alarm or distress. A course of conduct requires conduct on at least two occasions by the same individual, or by individuals whose conduct is pleaded to be linked or concerted.

4. The statutory exception for conduct pursued to prevent or detect crime cannot apply merely because the alleged harassment occurred in police work. Reliance on the exception would ordinarily require evidence that the particular course of conduct was pursued specifically for crime prevention or detection. It was therefore generally inappropriate to strike out claims on that basis before evidence had been heard.

5. The claims of Bloomfield, Combe and Miller each failed at the pleading stage. Bloomfield relied on one incident, conduct directed at Davie rather than at him, and conduct insufficiently grave. Combe relied principally on one dispute concerning disclosure, with an unrelated incident involving another officer. Miller relied on a single difference of approach concerning informant handling and an incapable allegation concerning a remark about detectives. None disclosed the necessary course of conduct, gravity, targeting or calculation to cause distress.

6. The claims of Bloomfield, Combe and Miller were struck out. Alternatively, summary judgment was entered for the defendant in respect of each claim. The remaining claims continued, subject to the permitted amendments and costs directions.

Not an appeal. The judgment records an interlocutory hearing following a case management conference before HHJ Holman on 22 December 2008.