Clyde & Co LLP & Anor v Christopher Kennedy

Repeated unwelcome attendances at a workplace may constitute harassment even without violence or objectively aggressive conduct. The conduct must be objectively oppressive and unacceptable, assessed by reference to its persistence, manner and effect. A legal person may rely on section 1(1A) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 only where the statutory intention to persuade requirement is proved. The defendant bears the burden of establishing a statutory defence. Where harassment is proved, a final injunction remains discretionary and must be necessary and proportionate. Exclusion from premises and a restricted communication channel may be justified where the defendant has no legitimate reason to attend, alternative communication is available, and the conduct causes continuing anxiety and operational cost.

Clyde & Co LLP and a partner representing staff at its Birmingham office sought final injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defendant had repeatedly attended the office, sometimes entering by tailgating, filming reception staff, refusing to leave and requiring police or security intervention. He maintained that he was pursuing legitimate claims concerning professional negligence and compensation allegedly due from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.

An interim injunction had been granted in July 2024. The central questions were whether the conduct amounted to harassment of the workforce, whether the defendant intended to persuade Clyde & Co to act as described in section 1(1A)(c), whether any statutory defence applied, and whether final injunctive relief was necessary and proportionate.

1. Claim proved. The defendant’s repeated, unwelcome attendances amounted to a course of conduct. The conduct included unauthorised filming, entry by tailgating, prolonged presence after requests to leave and repeated police or security intervention.
2. Harassment is assessed objectively. Conduct need not be violent or overtly aggressive. Applying the approach in Ferguson v British Gas Trading [2010] 1 WLR 785 and DPP v Hardy [2008] EWHC 2874 (Admin), conduct which is persistent, oppressive and unacceptable may fall within the Act even if an initially legitimate inquiry becomes objectionable through its manner or persistence.
3. The workforce, including reception staff, experienced alarm, distress and anxiety. Staff altered their behaviour, avoided the reception area and required additional security. A reasonable person in possession of the relevant information would have appreciated that the conduct amounted to harassment.
4. Clyde & Co also proved the additional requirement under section 1(1A). The defendant intended to pressure it into persuading its clients to pay him or into making payment itself, although it had no obligation to do either.
5. The statutory defences were not established. The conduct was not pursued to prevent or detect crime, under an enactment or rule of law, or reasonably in the circumstances. The defendant had accessible alternative means of communication and no legitimate reason to attend the Birmingham office.
6. Final injunctive relief was necessary and proportionate. The defendant had no right or need to attend the office, while the workforce faced continuing anxiety and the claimants incurred security costs. The injunction excluded him from the Birmingham office and the defined area immediately outside it, and restricted communications to a designated email account, until further order.

First-instance decision. An interim injunction had previously been granted by the High Court on 22 July 2024; the present judgment granted final injunctive relief.