King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2025-000703 - [2025] EWHC 2957 (KB)

Fecha: 13-Nov-2025

(a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and

(c)by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—

(i)not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or

(ii)to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

21.

The main principles of what amounts to harassment in law were summarised by Nicklin J in Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) at [40]-[44]. I note his general description of harassment at [44(i)-(ii)] in particular:

“i)
Harassment is an ordinary English word with a well understood meaning: it is a persistent and deliberate course of unacceptable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress; "a persistent and deliberate course of targeted oppression": Hayes -v- Willoughby [1], [12] per Lord Sumption.
ii)
The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, that arise occasionally in everybody's day-to-day dealings with other people. The conduct must cross the boundary between that which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable.[...]”

22.

For the purposes of this case, I note that a non-human legal entity, such as a company or LLP, may obtain an injunction to protect individuals from harassment: Merlin Entertainments PLC v Cave [2014] EWHC 3036 (QB); [2015] EMLR 3, [31]; Foot Anstey LLP v Stimson [2024] EWHC 2621 (KB), [41]-[50].

23.

The application before me is to strike out the defence and/or for summary judgment. The power to strike out derives from CPR 3.4(2) which provides:

The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a)

that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

(b)

that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

(c)

that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

24.

In relation to this case, I note that the term ‘statement of case’ includes a Defence (CPR 2.3(1)). CPR PD3A para. 1.4 notes that a Defence may fall within CPR 3.4(2)(a) where it consists of a bare denial or otherwise sets out no coherent statement of facts, or where the facts it sets out, while coherent, would not amount in law to a defence to the claim even if true.

25.

The general requirements for a defence are found in CPR 16.5(1) which provides:

In the defence, the defendant must deal with every allegation in the particulars of claim, stating—

(a)

which of the allegations are denied;

(b)

which allegations they are unable to admit or deny, but which they require the claimant to prove; and

(c)

which allegations they admit.