Ideasoft Solutions Llc & Ors v Peter Kolomiets

Summary disposal is inappropriate where an arguable legal issue may depend on facts at trial, may not arise, or would benefit from a decision on established facts. A harassment claim may proceed where alleged threats and demands have an arguable oppressive quality and their context requires trial evidence. A corporate defamation claimant must establish the relevant trading reputation and serious financial loss caused by reputational harm. But a pleading defect does not require dismissal where the evidence gives the claim a real prospect of success and amendment can clarify the issues. The court left open whether the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997 reaches conduct originating in England and Wales where its effects are experienced abroad.

The claimants sought damages and injunctive relief for alleged harassment, defamation and causing loss by unlawful means. The defendant applied to strike out or obtain summary judgment on the harassment claims and the First Claimant’s defamation claims based on a warning email and a social media post. The applications raised the territorial reach of the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997, whether the First Claimant had a trading reputation in England and Wales, and whether it had a real prospect of proving serious financial loss. The claimants’ separate application concerning the Defence was not reached.

1. The defendant’s applications for strike out and summary judgment were refused at this stage. The court invited the parties to agree directions requiring the First Claimant to amend its particulars of claim. The claimants’ application concerning the Defence was not heard.

2. The harassment claim was coherently pleaded and had a real prospect of success. The emails contained threats and demands which could arguably damage the claimants’ business and put pressure on them. Whether the conduct crossed the required threshold of seriousness, unreasonableness and oppressiveness depended on the context of the exchanges, the defendant’s alleged motives and the evidence about their effect. Those issues should be assessed at trial.

3. The court did not decide whether the 1997 Act applies where the alleged course of conduct originates in England and Wales but its effects are experienced abroad. The existing first-instance authorities gave the defendant a strong argument. However, the criminal-law authorities provided a realistic basis for arguing that the statutory territorial question may be more nuanced. The point could be academic if the conduct did not meet the harassment threshold, and a decision on established facts could assist an appellate court. The judge’s preliminary view was that harassment requires the putative victim to experience the conduct, but he did not tie the trial judge’s hands on the territorial issue.

4. The First Claimant had not pleaded that it had a trading reputation in England and Wales for its social media claim. The evidence nevertheless gave it a real prospect of establishing that reputation, so the claim was not struck out. The court also found a real prospect that the warning email referred to the First Claimant and caused serious reputational harm. Its case on serious financial loss was less clear, but it was given an opportunity to clarify the case by amendment.

5. The social media claim was also left for trial. Evidence that clients and prospective clients had asked about the allegations provided a basis beyond the words’ defamatory tendency and their circulation alone. The lack of specific evidence of lost contracts and the mismatch between the pleaded meaning and the evidence raised causation issues, but those fact-sensitive issues were not suitable for summary determination.