Srinivasan v Tata Technologies (Europe) Ltd & Anor

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, harassment requires a course of conduct which is objectively oppressive and unacceptable, judged by reference to a reasonable person possessing the same information. Distress or alarm alone is insufficient. Legitimate workplace management, commercial decisions, knowledge-sharing requests and reasonable responses to an uncooperative contractor will not amount to harassment merely because they cause upset. The court must assess the conduct individually and collectively, while considering any statutory defence of reasonableness.

The claimant, an SAP architect engaged by Tata Technologies (Europe) Ltd to work on Jaguar Land Rover’s IT projects, alleged nine acts of harassment by employees and contractors of the defendants. The allegations included reducing his workload, refusing requests to work from home, repeated knowledge-sharing requests, pressure to leave, termination of his contract, removal from the workplace, access to his work email account and failures concerning health and safety arrangements.

The claim was limited to civil liability under sections 1 and 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Liability only was tried. The central issue was whether the conduct proved, individually or cumulatively, amounted to harassment.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant failed to prove any act of harassment against either defendant.
2. The governing test under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 required conduct on at least two occasions which was objectively calculated to cause alarm or distress and objectively oppressive and unacceptable. The assessment was made from the standpoint of a reasonable person possessing the same information as the alleged perpetrator. Distress alone was insufficient.
3. The court applied the distinction between unattractive or unreasonable conduct and conduct of sufficient gravity to sustain criminal liability. No malice was required, although malice could assist in establishing oppressive and unacceptable conduct.
4. The decision to identify a replacement, recruit a second architect, request knowledge sharing and monitor compliance were legitimate and reasonable project-management steps. They did not become harassment because the claimant perceived them as an attempt to remove him from his role.
5. The defendants’ actions in terminating the contract on notice, requiring the claimant to leave the worksite, restricting access to company systems and creating an out-of-office message were legitimate commercial responses. The evidence did not establish threats, police involvement, humiliating treatment or oppressive conduct.
6. The court assessed the alleged conduct both under individual heads and cumulatively. Although several courses of conduct were proved, none was objectively oppressive and unacceptable. Alternatively, any conduct which might arguably have crossed that threshold would have been reasonable under section 1(3)(c).
7. Permission to appeal was refused because no specific error giving a real prospect of success was identified. Costs submissions were directed to be filed sequentially.

The judgment records earlier case-management decisions, including orders striking out the other heads of claim, refusing to disapply the statutory limitation period and limiting the trial to liability. Those decisions remained unaltered. This was the first-instance determination of the surviving harassment claim.