APW v WPA

For an interim injunction, the court applies the American Cyanamid questions: whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and, if not, where the balance of convenience lies. An arguable course of conduct under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 does not automatically justify an injunction. The court must assess the risk of repetition and whether relief is necessary and proportionate on the evidence at the hearing. Attendance at public places where a former partner may be present will not, without more, amount to harassment.

The claimant sought interim injunctions against a former partner, alleging harassment and threatened publication of private and confidential information. The defendant denied any threat or intention to publish. On the return date, the court considered whether the evidence disclosed an arguable case and whether immediate injunctive relief was necessary and proportionate.

1. The application was dismissed. The court applied the general interim-injunction principles identified in American Cyanamid: a serious question to be tried, adequacy of damages, and, if necessary, the balance of convenience.
2. The claimant had shown a good arguable case that particular messages caused distress and arguably amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. No final findings were made on disputed evidence.
3. Even if the defendant had attended public places knowing that the claimant was present, that would not itself amount to harassment. There was no evidence of violence or threatened confrontation.
4. The context of the messages was relevant to the risk of repetition. The evidence did not establish a sufficient continuing threat. Damages and a possible later application for an injunction provided sufficient protection on the facts before the court.
5. An injunction would therefore have been excessive and disproportionate.