All items: Protection from harassment

• expand

  Banks v Ablex Limited [2005] All ER (D) 366 (Feb) CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Harassment/employer's liability: Claim under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 fails

    Date:

    13 May 2005

    In Banks v Ablex Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the claimant suffered a depressive disorder, allegedly as a result of the conduct of a colleague, but failed to establish that a course of conduct had taken place that could be properly described as harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in that she failed to show that the misconduct had occurred on at least two occasions.

• expand

  Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (No.2) [2016] IRLR 295 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Trade union activities: Deliberate failure to protect trade union member was detriment because of trade union activities

    Date:

    1 June 2016

    In Bone v North Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (No.2) [2016] IRLR 295 CA, the Court of Appeal upheld an employment tribunal decision that an employer's "deliberate failure" to deal with "a campaign of harassment and bullying" against a trade union member amounted to a detriment because of trade union activities.

  • Trade union activities: failure to deal with bullying of union member was detriment

    Date:

    10 February 2016

    The Court of Appeal has held that an employer's failure to deal with antagonism towards a trade union member amounted to a detriment because of trade union activities.

• expand

  First Global Locums Ltd and others v Cosias [2005] IRLR 873 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • First Global Locums Ltd and others v Cosias

    Date:

    14 November 2005

    In First Global Locums Ltd and others v Cosias [2005] IRLR 873 HC, the High Court has granted an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 restraining a former employee.

• expand

  Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd [2007] EWHC 2604 HC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd

    Date:

    19 November 2007

    The High Court has held that, in order to succeed in a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, an employee must show that there was 'an element of real seriousness' to the harassment.

• expand

  Hayes (FC) v Willoughby [2011] EWCA Civ 1541 SC (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case of the week: Crime-prevention defence under Protection from Harassment Act 1997

    Date:

    5 June 2013

    In this week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, the Supreme Court considers a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that was brought by one employee against another.

• expand

  Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2005] IRLR 340 CA (4 reports relating to this case)

  • Stalking Act can be used by harassed employees

    Date:

    31 May 2005

    A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal means that employers may now face civil liability claims for stress and anxiety caused by harassment, under the terms of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, writes Paul Quain of Linklaters.

  • Harassment/employer's liability: Employers held vicariously liable under 'stalking' legislation

    Date:

    13 May 2005

    In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal holds that vicarious liability is not restricted to common law claims. An employer may be vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty imposed only on his employee, if that would be just and reasonable in light of a sufficiently close connection between the unlawful act and the employee's duties and/or if the risk of the employee's wrongdoing is "reasonably incidental" to the employee's duties and, further, if the statute does not expressly (or on its proper construction) exclude such vicarious liability.

  • Protection from Harassment Act covers workplace

    Date:

    1 May 2005

    An employer may be held vicariously liable for harassment by its employees, in breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, provided that there is sufficient connection between the breach and the employment and/or the risk of such breach was one reasonably incidental to the employment, holds the Court of Appeal in Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust.

  • Case round-up: Liability for employees' harassment of third parties

    Date:

    5 April 2005

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering liability for employees' harassment of third parties.

• expand

  Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 695 HL (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Harassment/employer's liability: Employers may be vicariously liable under 'stalking' legislation

    Date:

    22 September 2006

    In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 695 HL, the House of Lords holds that under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 employers will be vicariously liable for harassment committed by employees acting in the course of their employment.

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 September 2006

    Joe Glavina and Phil Williams of Addleshaw Goddard outline the latest legal rulings and explain what you need to do to avoid tribunals.

• expand

  Rayment v Ministry of Defence [2010] IRLR 768 HC (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Rayment v Ministry of Defence

    Date:

    10 March 2010

    The High Court has awarded damages for injury and distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 March 2010

    Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.

• expand

  Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2010] IRLR 132 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Protection from harassment: "Oppressive and unacceptable" conduct is test for harassment

    Date:

    10 March 2010

    In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2010] IRLR 132 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who was bullied at work by her line manager had been harassed within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. While the Court had to keep in mind the need for the conduct complained of to be serious enough to sustain criminal liability, the key test was whether or not it was "oppressive and unacceptable". On the unchallenged evidence before the Court, it clearly was.

  • Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd

    Date:

    8 December 2009

    The Court of Appeal has held that an employer was vicariously liable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for a manager's unusually serious harassment of an employee.