Recovering debt no excuse for abuse and harassment

S & D Property Investments Ltd v Nisbet and French

(Chancery Division –13 July 2009)

As a result of certain business ventures, Mr Nisbet owed Mr French a debt in excess of £100 000. Mr French obtained judgment in relation to the debt. In the defence, Mr Nisbet admitted the debt but counterclaimed for damages under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in relation to Mr French's alleged conduct in seeking recovery of the debt.

The Act prohibits a person from pursuing a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another. Breach of the Act confers both civil and criminal liability. The court held Mr French liable for harassment under the Act.

The court found that although earlier conduct was not held to be harassment, for a period of about a month starting in mid-December 2007, Mr French had pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment under the Act. The relevant conduct included a series of threatening e-mails and telephone calls and visits to Mr Nisbet's home during which Mr French shouted abuse (in relation to one of which Mr French was convicted of a public order offence).

Secondly, Mr Nisbet was entitled to damages for anxiety as a result of the harassment. The judge observed that damages under the Act could be awarded without the need to prove psychiatric harm and without the need for medical evidence" evidence of anxiety can come from witnesses and the victim himself. The judge also noted that such damages are likely to be modest. The appropriate sum here was £7000.

Thirdly, damages could be awarded for financial loss as a result of harassment under the Act. However, in the present case no such award was made because the claimant failed to prove that any financial loss resulted from the harassment.

The claimant company (S & D Property Investments) of which Mr French was a director could also be vicariously liable for the harassment because he was acting as an agent for that company in taking steps to recover the debt.

And, finally, the damages for harassment could be set-off against the debt.

COMMENT

This case confirms that in order to recover for harassment under the Act, there must be a course of conduct and that such conduct must be oppressive and unacceptable.  Damages can be awarded for anxiety and financial loss caused by the harassment. Malcolm Keen, BLM London

The following law report contributed by specialist insurance practice Berrymans Lace Mawer (www.blm-law.com) first appeared in Post Magazine on20 August 2009

Disclaimer: The law report contains information of general interest about current legal issues, it does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in any particular case.