Saha v Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine

Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires more than conduct which causes distress. The claimant must establish a targeted course of conduct, objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and objectively oppressive and unacceptable conduct. Context is important. The boundary is between unattractive or unreasonable conduct and conduct sufficiently grave to justify criminal liability. A supervisor’s unreasonable, intemperate or insensitive communications do not necessarily amount to harassment where they are directed in good faith towards supervision, are not objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and do not form a sufficient continuing course of oppressive conduct. The court must assess the conduct as a whole, including its purpose, context, persistence and effect.

The claimant was a PhD student at Imperial College. She claimed damages under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, alleging that her supervisor and two members of the research team had harassed her through emails, intimidation and interference with her work.

The court determined whether the alleged incidents formed a course of conduct amounting to harassment, whether the relevant defendants knew or ought to have known that it did so, and whether the statutory defence of reasonableness applied.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant failed to prove that any defendant pursued a course of conduct amounting to harassment contrary to section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
2. Harassment is a course of conduct targeted at the claimant, objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress, and objectively oppressive and unacceptable. The assessment is objective, but the context is important. The conduct must cross the boundary from unattractive or unreasonable behaviour to conduct of a gravity capable of sustaining criminal liability.
3. The supervisor’s emails were at times intemperate, high-handed, accusatory and unreasonable. His demands concerning working hours and checking attendance were unreasonable, and he should not have circulated the claimant’s informal complaint. Those matters were criticised and caused her real distress.
4. Nevertheless, the conduct did not amount to harassment. The unreasonable demands were not maintained; there were no sufficient further incidents; later contact was limited; and the supervisor’s principal aim was to put the claimant’s research back on track. The communications were not objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress and did not cross the threshold of oppressive and unacceptable conduct.
5. The refusal to fund attendance at an international conference was reasoned and reasonable. References to scientific maturity were directed to the readiness of the research for presentation and did not attack the claimant’s integrity. The later alleged incidents were either unproved or objectively innocuous.
6. The allegations against the two research-team members were also unproved as harassment. Any acts concerning laboratory materials, equipment or shared facilities were undertaken in good faith, without an intention to disrupt the claimant’s work, or were reasonable in the circumstances.
7. In any event, the claimant failed to establish that the defendants knew or ought to have known that their conduct amounted to harassment.