The reputation management team at Russell-Cooke recently obtained a final injunction order on behalf of their client, Albert Court (Westminster) Management Company Limited (and others) in the reported case of Albert Court (Westminster Management Company Limited & Ors v Marcel Nasser Fetaimia and Victoria Fetaimia [2022] EWHC 1657 (QB)).
The case raised interesting points around claims pursuant to section 3 and 3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PFHA 1997), together with novel issues of evidence and conduct at trial.
Background
The claimants were the management company of a prestigious mansion block adjacent to the Royal Albert Hall, London (the 'property') and various individuals with differing relationships with Albert Court. A number of staff are employed in connection with the management and upkeep of the property. The defendants were two occupiers of a flat at the property.
The claimants alleged that, between November 2019 and February 2022, the defendants pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment of the management company’s officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, other leaseholders and legal representatives.
In particular, it was contended that the defendants made repeated false allegations of bribery, fraud, theft and corruption against the management company’s directors in connection with the management of the property. This also led to threatening behaviour and the recording of conversations without permission. The defendants’ conduct was consistently oppressive, hostile and unreasonable.
The Court overwhelmingly agreed with the claimants’ evidence and granted a final injunction against the defendants, together with an order for costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
The PFHA 1997 provides protection from harassment in a broad range of disputes and can be used to address many kinds of distressing and disruptive conduct, including stalking, anti-social behaviour, defamation and protection from the media.
The case impresses the importance of identifying significant and serious incidents of harassment and how such repeated and persistent conduct will necessitate and justify an order for a final injunction under PFHA 1997 to protect an individual. In the event the injunction is breached, further sanctions then apply.
It also highlights the Court’s approach to extraordinary conduct by witnesses at trial, including covert recordings of Court hearings and providing false statements in witness evidence. Such conduct may amount to contempt of Court and could lead to further sanction.
The proceedings
In June 2021 Part 8 proceedings were issued and an application made for an injunction against the defendants pursuant to section 1 and section 3 of the PFHA 1997 namely:
- “A person must not pursue a course of conduct: (i) which amounts to harassment of another, and (ii) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other” and“the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other” (section 1(1) and (2) of the PFHA 1997).
- “An actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question” and “on such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment (section 3(1) and (2) of the PFHA 1997).
Where the Court grants an injunction and without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which they are prohibited from doing by the injunction, they are guilty of an offence.
The defendants provided undertakings to the Court at the first hearing and the case proceeded to trial in May 2022.
Outcome
The defendants dis-instructed their solicitors in the week before the commencement of trial and proceeded as litigants in person.
Over the course of the seven-day trial, the Court heard evidence from 11 witnesses on behalf of the claimants and the defendants. The Court overwhelmingly agreed with the claimants’ evidence and granted a final injunction against the defendants, together with an order for costs to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
The claimants identified 19 individual incidents of harassment that occurred both prior to and during the proceedings. The Court preferred the claimants’ evidence in relation to 17 out of 19 of the incidents and concluded that those matters amounted to a course of conduct for the purposes of section 1(1) PFHA 1997 which in turn, amounted to harassment. The Court was more than satisfied that the defendants knew that their actions amounted to harassment but even if they did not know, they ought to have known because a reasonable person would think the same.
There were some unusual and novel issues that arose at trial, including:
- One of the defendants took a notebook to the witness box for reference under cross-examination. The Court explained that the use of notes was not appropriate to give evidence. Following this, the defendant then wrote notes on their hand for reference under cross-examination. The judgment referred to this conduct as “blatant disrespect for the court and its process.”
- On the fifth day of trial, under cross-examination, one of the defendants admitted to having covert recordings of a previous hearing on 13 January 2022 and making recordings of parts of the trial. As a result, the defendants’ mobile devices were detained by the police. As set out in the judgment, those issues are now the subject matter of a police investigation and potentially committal proceedings.
- One of the defendants denied in a witness statement that they had any criminal convictions, save for one minor conviction. However, under cross-examination at trial under oath, and in relation to other offences, the defendant was forced to admit further convictions, most of which had been denied.
Comment
The PFHA 1997 provides protection from harassment in a broad range of disputes and can be used to address many kinds of distressing and disruptive conduct, including stalking, anti-social behaviour, defamation and protection from the media.
The case impresses the importance of identifying significant and serious incidents of harassment and how such repeated and persistent conduct will necessitate and justify an order for a final injunction under PFHA 1997 to protect an individual. In the event the injunction is breached, further sanctions then apply.
It also highlights the Court’s approach to extraordinary conduct by witnesses at trial, including covert recordings of Court hearings and providing false statements in witness evidence. Such conduct may amount to contempt of Court and could lead to further sanction.
Anyone who is dealing with such issues that may amount to harassment should seek legal advice as early as possible. The reputation management team at Russell-Cooke has deep experience in harrassment cases.