Levi v Bates [2015] EWCA Civ 206

Mrs Levi suffered alarm and distress from harassment targeted at her husband by Mr Bates, who published their home address and telephone number encouraging football supporters to confront them. The Court of Appeal held that victims of foreseeable collateral damage from harassment targeted at another can claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Facts

Mr Kenneth Bates, chairman of Leeds United Football Club, harboured grievances against Mr Melvyn Levi arising from business dealings during changes in control of the club. Between 2005 and 2011, Mr Bates published articles in the club’s match programmes vilifying Mr Levi. Crucially, in March 2007, two articles published Mr and Mrs Levi’s home address and telephone number, inviting thousands of club supporters to confront Mr Levi about alleged dishonourable conduct. Mrs Levi, who shared the home with her husband, suffered alarm and distress. The police advised the couple to take precautions, and special alarms were fitted at their home.

Prior Proceedings

Mr Levi had successfully sued for libel in 2009, obtaining £50,000 damages for some of the publications. Mrs Levi brought separate harassment proceedings but was unsuccessful at trial because the judge found that, save for one occasion, Mr Bates’ conduct was not targeted at her.

Issues

The central issue was whether a person who suffers foreseeable harm from harassment targeted at someone else can claim protection under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Specifically, must the harassing conduct be targeted at the claimant, or is it sufficient that the claimant was a foreseeable victim of conduct targeted at another?

Judgment

The Court of Appeal allowed Mrs Levi’s appeal. Lord Justice Briggs, delivering the lead judgment, held that the requirement for conduct to be ‘targeted’ does not mean it must be targeted at the claimant specifically.

The Targeting Requirement

Briggs LJ explained that Lord Phillips’ reference to ‘targeting’ in Thomas v News Group Newspapers was designed to distinguish harassment from conduct causing alarm or distress that is not aimed at anyone at all. The purpose was not to exclude persons who are foreseeably and directly harmed by conduct targeted at someone else.

Statutory Interpretation

The court found no express words in the Act limiting claims to targeted individuals. Section 3(1) permits claims by persons who are ‘victims’ of the relevant conduct. Section 1(1)(b) requires that the perpetrator knows or ought to know the conduct amounts to harassment, importing a foreseeability requirement.

The Test

The ability to bring a harassment claim extends beyond the targeted individual to those other persons who are foreseeably and directly harmed by the course of targeted conduct, to the extent they can properly be described as victims of it. Alarm or distress suffered merely out of sympathy for the targeted victim is insufficient.

Application to Facts

Mrs Levi’s claim arose not from sympathetic distress but because Mr Bates chose to incite supporters to direct hostile acts at the family home. It was plainly foreseeable that publication of the incitement would cause her alarm and distress.

Damages and Injunction

The court awarded Mrs Levi £6,000 in damages for the anxiety caused by the 2007 publications. However, the court declined to grant an injunction given the significant time delay between the harassment and the proceedings, and because her husband’s injunction provided practical protection.

Implications

This case significantly clarifies the scope of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It establishes that victims of ‘collateral damage’ from harassment can claim under the Act provided they were foreseeably and directly harmed by conduct targeted at another. The decision recognises that harassment may affect those in close proximity to the target, particularly family members sharing a home, and extends statutory protection accordingly. However, the court emphasised that mere sympathetic distress for the targeted victim is insufficient; there must be direct harm to the claimant from the harassing conduct.

Verdict: Appeal allowed in part. Mrs Levi was awarded £6,000 damages for harassment but her claim for an injunction was dismissed.

Source: Levi v Bates [2015] EWCA Civ 206