Hamza Ijaz v Ghafoor Manan

A defamation claimant must prove serious reputational harm caused, or probably to be caused, by publication. The inherent seriousness of an allegation and the identity of the recipient do not by themselves satisfy section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013.

Harassment requires a persistent and deliberate course of targeted conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable, viewed objectively and in its full context. Unreasonable or unpleasant communications may remain below that threshold, particularly where their actual effect is limited.

A party claiming contractual or restitutionary recovery must prove the relevant contractual term, loss, or unjust factor. A fixed-term contract terminated prematurely may support damages for the resulting loss of earnings.

The claimant, a dentist and former employee of the defendant, brought claims for breach of contract, defamation and harassment. He alleged that a genuine five-year contract had been terminated prematurely and that the defendant had made false allegations of fraud in communications to regulators, tax authorities, an employer and others.

The defendant denied the contract’s authenticity, counterclaimed for alleged overpayments and other sums, and disputed liability in defamation and harassment. The court determined the authenticity and effect of the contract, the counterclaim, whether the publications caused serious harm under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, and whether the communications and related conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

1. Contract and counterclaim. The alleged contract was genuine and created a five-year fixed term. The defendant failed to prove any contractual limit on the claimant’s UDAs, any fraud, or any recoverable loss. The claimant had performed the work for which he was paid, and the unjust-enrichment claim had no established basis. The counterclaim was dismissed.
2. The defendant’s instruction that the claimant leave amounted to premature termination of the fixed-term contract. In the absence of any effective notice provision, failure to mitigate, or other basis limiting recovery, the claimant was entitled to damages for loss of earnings over the balance of the term. The court awarded £35,130.30 for arrears and £137,555 for future loss, together with interest as ordered.
3. Defamation. Applying Lachaux v Independent Print Limited [2019] UKSC 27, the court held that section 1(1) required evidence of actual serious reputational harm or probable future serious harm. The three communications were each sent to one recipient, and there was no sufficient evidence of adverse reaction or consequence. The defamation claims therefore failed.
4. Harassment. The court adopted the framework discussed in Hayden v Dickson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) and approved in Scottow v Crown Prosecution Service [2020] EWHC 3421. The conduct had to cross the boundary from the unattractive or unreasonable to oppressive and unacceptable conduct of sufficient seriousness to warrant criminal liability. The entire course of conduct was considered, including its context, persistence, manner, effect and the importance of freedom of expression where engaged.
5. Although the defendant’s allegations and communications were unjustified, unpleasant and sometimes vindictive, they were not sufficiently persistent or serious in nature or effect to amount to harassment. The harassment claim was dismissed.
6. The claimant’s breach-of-contract claims succeeded. His defamation and harassment claims, and the defendant’s counterclaim, were dismissed. The parties were invited to agree an order dealing with interest, costs and consequential matters.