Ting Lan Hong & KLM (A Child) v XYZ & Ors

A civil injunction may be granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 where repeated conduct amounts, or is apprehended to amount, to harassment. Harassment includes conduct which alarms or causes distress. In assessing the statutory threshold, the court may consider the cumulative effect of persistent following, photography, intimidation and unwanted contact. The conduct must also be objectively known, or ought reasonably to be known, to amount to harassment. Even where the statutory conditions are met, the court must be satisfied that injunctive relief is necessary and proportionate.

The claimants sought urgent injunctive relief without notice against unidentified persons responsible for photographing and following them outside their home and in public. The first claimant, the mother of the second claimant, described persistent surveillance, photography, unwanted contact and intimidating behaviour affecting both her and her child. The defendants did not appear or participate. The central issue was whether the evidence established an actual or apprehended breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 sufficient to justify an injunction.

1. The court granted an injunction prohibiting harassment of the claimants under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
2. The statutory scheme requires a course of conduct which amounts to harassment and which the alleged harasser knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment. The objective test is whether a reasonable person possessing the same information would regard the conduct as harassment.
3. Harassment includes alarming a person or causing distress. In relation to one person, a course of conduct requires conduct on at least two occasions.
4. The evidence demonstrated repeated following and photography, persistent attendance outside the home, unwanted calls and messages, attempts to obtain information through neighbours, and intimidating conduct directed towards the first claimant, her family and her child. Taken cumulatively, that conduct was capable of amounting to harassment and supported an apprehended breach.
5. The statutory exception for conduct shown to be reasonable in the particular circumstances did not prevent relief on the evidence before the court. The court was satisfied that the injunction was necessary and proportionate.
6. The claimants undertook to issue and serve the claim form and to provide a witness statement substantially in the draft before the court. The order was made without notice because the defendants' identities were unknown.