Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123 (15 February 2011)

A solicitor-advocate brought a harassment claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against his former employer solicitors' firm, based on three letters containing allegations against his professional and personal integrity. The Court of Appeal reinstated the claim after it had been struck out, holding that the letters were arguably capable of constituting a course of conduct amounting to harassment.

Facts

Mr Iqbal, a solicitor-advocate, had briefly worked for Dean Manson Solicitors in February and March 2006. In January 2009, when Mr Iqbal was instructed to act for Mr Butt in proceedings brought by Dean Manson, the firm sent three letters to Mr Iqbal questioning his integrity, alleging he had been summarily dismissed for insubordination, accusing him of pursuing a personal vendetta, and making allegations about his former partner’s immigration status. Two letters were copied to the court. Mr Iqbal brought proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Background to the Letters

The first letter (28 January 2009) raised questions about Mr Iqbal’s integrity and independence. The second letter (17 February 2009) alleged he was summarily dismissed for insubordination and was pursuing a personal vendetta. The third letter (26 February 2009) made allegations about Mr Iqbal’s former partner working illegally in the UK.

Issues

The key issues were: (i) whether the three letters were capable of constituting harassment; (ii) whether they could amount to a ‘course of conduct’ within the Act; (iii) whether the defence could be relied upon as evidence; and (iv) whether a partnership could be sued under section 3 of the Act.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Rix, Lady Justice Smith, and Lord Justice Richards) allowed the appeal, reinstating Mr Iqbal’s claim.

Course of Conduct

The Court held that the Act is concerned with courses of conduct which amount to harassment, rather than individual instances. Individual acts must be looked at as a whole to determine whether they constitute a course of conduct amounting to harassment. The judge below erred in failing to consider the three letters together.

Nature of Harassment

The Court found that all three letters were arguably capable of constituting harassment. Lord Justice Rix stated that the letters arguably amount to a deliberate attack on Mr Iqbal’s professional and personal integrity, designed to pressurise him into declining to act for his client.

Partnership Liability

The Court held that a partnership can be a defendant to a civil action under section 3 of the Act. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, ‘person’ includes unincorporated bodies unless a contrary intention appears. The House of Lords in Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust had confirmed that employers, including corporate bodies, could be vicariously liable under the Act.

Implications

This case clarifies that: (1) harassment claims must be assessed by looking at the alleged conduct as a whole, not each incident in isolation; (2) partnerships and unincorporated bodies can be sued under section 3 of the Act; (3) attacks on a professional person’s integrity may constitute harassment even in the context of litigation; and (4) the Part 8 procedure requirement for harassment claims under CPR 65.28 does not deprive the court of jurisdiction if proceedings are commenced under Part 7.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. Mr Iqbal's claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was reinstated after being struck out by the courts below.

Source: Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123 (15 February 2011)