Carey & Anor v Burgoyne & Anor

Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires persistent conduct of a seriously oppressive nature targeted at an individual and causing fear or distress. Conduct which is merely unattractive, unreasonable, irritating or upsetting does not cross the statutory threshold. The statutory defence applies where the course of conduct was reasonable in the particular circumstances.

A short, accidental interruption of an easement is not a substantial interference warranting damages or an injunction. Liability for discharges from defective pipes depends on whether the easement is being fairly and properly exercised and whether the discharges impose a legally actionable burden.

The claimants owned Higgery Piggery, adjoining the defendants’ farm. They alleged that the defendants had harassed them through conduct concerning electricity and water supplies, drainage from a pond, CCTV, lighting, trees, surveillance and complaints to the police and environmental health authorities.

The claimants relied principally on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. They also alleged interference with easements and sought relief concerning an overflowing pond drain. The central issues were whether the defendants’ conduct amounted to a statutory course of conduct amounting to harassment and whether the claimants had established any independent entitlement to relief.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimants had not established harassment or any other basis for relief.
2. Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, harassment requires more than irritation, annoyance or a measure of upset. The conduct must be persistent and seriously oppressive, physically or mentally, targeted at an individual and resulting in fear or distress. The statutory reference to alarming or distressing conduct does not mean that every course of conduct causing alarm or distress constitutes harassment.
3. The defendants were not obliged to continue supplying water or electricity under an informal arrangement made with the former owners. The claimants’ transfer gave them rights to lay an underground electricity cable and a water pipe, but the defendants had not refused those rights. The claimants had not pursued the available arrangements for the electricity connection.
4. The brief freezing of the claimants’ water pipe was accidental and did not amount to a substantial interference with the easement. Even if it had been substantial, only nominal damages would have been awarded and injunctive relief refused.
5. The pond overflow did not establish harassment or trespass. The principal defects were structural and were probably caused mainly by works and vehicle movements connected with Higgery Piggery. It was not shown that any discharge attributable to the defendants caused actionable damage or imposed a significant additional burden.
6. The CCTV camera filmed no significant part of the claimants’ home and was an understandable security response to the dispute. The lighting, leylandii planting, photographs, police complaints and environmental health complaints likewise did not demonstrate conduct of the necessary oppressive character.