David Punt v Bonaventura Nino Ruocco

For an interim injunction restraining alleged harassment, the claimant must show a serious issue to be tried. A course of conduct may amount to arguable harassment where its volume, tone and effect cumulatively satisfy the applicable threshold, including conduct directed at multiple individuals under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The balance of convenience favours continuation where the injunction has prevented the conduct and causes little prejudice to the respondent. A mechanism permitting an application to vary the order can address legitimate requests for information or documents. The usual unlimited cross-undertaking in damages remains appropriate unless evidence justifies capping it.

The claimants sought continuation of an injunction previously granted by Lavender J pending trial of their claim against the defendant for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The defendant had sent numerous emails and made very frequent telephone calls to the second claimant and its employees concerning records connected with an historic bankruptcy and pension dispute. The issues were whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages were an adequate remedy, where the balance of convenience lay, and whether the cross-undertaking in damages should be limited.

1. Application granted. The injunction was continued pending trial in its existing terms. The court emphasised that it was making no findings of fact and that the harassment allegations remained to be proved at trial.
2. There was plainly a serious issue to be tried. The alleged conduct included more than 2,500 telephone calls over a short period, numerous emails and aggressive communications. Taken cumulatively, the volume, tone and effect on innocent reception staff and other individuals arguably amounted to harassment to the criminal standard. Section 1(1A) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 confirms that harassment may involve a course of conduct against multiple individuals.
3. Damages would not be an adequate remedy because the existing injunction appeared to be the only measure that had stopped the bombardment. The balance of convenience therefore strongly favoured continuation. The respondent remained able to raise matters with the Official Receiver and could apply, through the mechanism in the order, to seek permission to ask specific questions or request specific documents. The order did not permit him to ask those questions directly without such an application.
4. The cross-undertaking in damages should remain unlimited. Following FSA v Sinaloa [2013] UKSC 11, the possibility of loss is not a precondition to the usual undertaking. JSC v Pugachev [2015] EWCA Civ 139 showed that exposure may be capped in an appropriate case, but evidence was required. No evidence justified a cap here, and limiting the undertaking would have been potentially unfair and arbitrary.

This was a first-instance application for continuation of an injunction previously made by Lavender J on 22 September 2023. The judgment does not state any appellate history.