Case studies

"LexisLibrary gives us the most relevant and recent cases and always has the latest information on them. It makes research so much easier. We're more cost-effective for our clients and more efficient each day"

Advocates

Access all 61 documents on Protection from Harassment Act 1997

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 definition

Published by a LexisNexis Commercial expert

What does Protection from Harassment Act 1997 mean?

An Act of Parliament which criminalises stalking and/or other 'courses of conduct' (incidents which happen either repeatedly or at least more than once) which cause harassment and lead victims to suffer 'fear, alarm or distress'. As acts of harassment can be committed electronically, the PHA 1997 has also been used to secure prosecutions and convictions of social media users in addition to journalists who have used intrusive methods to pursue stories.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Time limits in personal injury and clinical negligence claims—checklist

Time limits in personal injury and clinical negligence claims—checklist This Checklist outlines the general limitation periods for personal injury and clinical negligence claims together with details of the types of claim which have exceptions to the standard limitation periods. Under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) the standard limitation periods in personal injury and clinical negligence claims are: Type of claim Time limit Limitation runs from? Discretion to extend time? Further guidance Most personal injury and clinical negligence claims on behalf of an adult Three years—LA 1980, s 11(4) —the date on which the cause of action accrued, or—the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured Yes —Time limits under the Limitation Act 1980—personal injury claims—Limitation in clinical negligence claims Occupational disease claim on behalf of an adult Three years—LA 1980, s 11(4) —the date on which the cause of action accrued, or—the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injuredFor the majority of disease cases (certainly those involving delayed onset of symptoms) the three-year limitation...

Procedural guide—Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (civil remedy)

Procedural guide—Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (civil remedy) The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) makes it an offence to pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and creates a civil tort allowing for a claim for damages and ancillary injunctions. The High Court and county court can grant an injunction for personal protection by forbidding harassment. Where clients are unable to avail themselves of the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) because they do not satisfy the criteria or eligibility, or where damages are sought, then their solution may lie under the PHA 1997. Claims under the PHA 1997 are not 'family proceedings' and applications are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132 (CPR). Criteria The relevant legislative provisions are contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. PHA 1997 Harassment is any course of conduct which might be seen by a reasonable person to amount to harassment. The victim of a course of conduct prohibited by PHA 1997, s...

Discover our 2 Checklists on Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Applications under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

This Practice Note explains the six criminal offences that may be committed under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) including harassment, fear of violence and stalking. It identifies criminal law remedies available to victims of harassment under PHA 1997, including restraining orders. It considers civil remedies eg damages for anxiety, injunctions and exclusion zones. It sets out the procedure under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), including who can apply and in which court. Information is provided on breach of injunction, undertakings, warrants of arrest and damages.Where clients are unable to avail themselves of the provisions of the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) because they do not satisfy the criteria or eligibility, or where damages are sought, then their solution may lie under PHA 1997. See Practice Note: Domestic violence non-molestation ordersProhibition of harassmentPHA 1997 creates a general prohibition on conduct amounting to harassment. It contains no definition of harassment. However, behaviour that amounts to harassment is determined by reference to the person whose course of conduct...

Occupational stress—introduction

This Practice Note deals with ‘traditional’ occupational stress claims and what amounts to occupational stress and claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997).See also Practice Note: Occupational stress—establishing liability‘Traditional’ occupational stress claimsThese are cases where the claimant has suffered a distinct psychiatric injury as a result of pressures or stresses experienced in the workplace. ‘Occupational stress’ is a label that reflects the background against which the psychiatric illness has developed: it is not an indication of any particular type of illness.Any recognised psychiatric illness that has foreseeably developed as a result of stresses encountered in the workplace can, in principle, found an occupational stress claim. If the claimant is simply suffering from occupational stress (ie stress at work), and does not have a recognisable psychiatric injury, they will not have a claim of this kind. See Practice Note: Recognised psychiatric illness.What constitutes occupational stress?The Health and Safety Executive uses the term 'stress' and defines it as the 'adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types...

Discover our 41 Practice Notes on Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Defence against claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work

Defence against claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] Claim No. [insert claim number] [Mr A B] Claimant -and- [C D PLC] Defendant __________________________________ DEFENCE __________________________________ 1 Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Particulars of Claim are admitted. 2 Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that it is denied that the letter from the Claimant’s General Practitioner dated 15 November 2013 stated that his condition had improved over the past year. The letter stated that the Claimant had last received treatment for anxiety and depression during 2007, that he had made a complete recovery, and that his anxiety and depression was unlikely to recur. 3 Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. 4 It is denied that on 15 January 2014, another employee of the Defendant made a complaint of bullying and harassment by [insert name, eg Mr Bloggs]. On [insert date, eg 18 January 2014], an employee wrote to [insert name, eg...

Particulars of claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work

Particulars of claim for occupational stress caused by harassment at work IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert] claim No. [insert claim number] Between [Mr A B] Claimant -and- [C D PLC] Defendant __________________________________ Particulars of claim __________________________________ 1 At all material times, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a mail sorter at its Islington office and acting in the course of his employment. The Claimant’s employment commenced on [insert date]. At all material times, the Claimant’s line manager was [insert name of Claimant’s line manager, eg Mr Bloggs]. [Mr Bloggs]’ line manager was [insert name, eg Mr Jones]. The Defendant’s Managing Director was [insert name, eg, Mr Smith]. 2 The Defendant owed the Claimant the following duties in tort and/or contract: 2.1 a duty to take reasonable care of the Claimant’s health and safety, which included employing competent fellow workers; and/or 2.2 a duty to take reasonable care to prevent the Claimant from suffering foreseeable psychiatric injury in the course of or as a result of...

Dive into our 4 Precedents related to Protection from Harassment Act 1997

If an employee raises a grievance in respect of sexual harassment, but does not want their employer to investigate, what is the effect on the employee’s harassment claim, ie is it a defence for the employer to say it failed to investigate because the employee did not want it to? Are you aware of any UK case law on this issue?

If an employee raises a grievance in respect of sexual harassment, but does not want their employer to investigate, what is the effect on the employee’s harassment claim, ie is it a defence for the employer to say it failed to investigate because the employee did not want it to? Are you aware of any UK case law on this issue? For information about sexual harassment, generally, see Practice Notes: • Sex discrimination • Harassment Under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), a person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic; and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. A also harasses B if A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature and that conduct has that purpose or effect. Sex is a relevant protected characteristic. An individual may also have a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA...

What is the procedure for bringing a civil claim for harassment?

What is the procedure for bringing a civil claim for harassment? Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 deals with civil claims for harassment. When determining the procedure by which such claims are brought in the civil courts you need to consider the rules in CPR 65, Part V (CPR 65.27). CPR 65.28 provides that the claim is subject to the CPR 8 procedure. The claim should be brought in either: • the Queen’s Bench Division, or • a County Court

See the 14 Q&As about Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Family monthly highlights—April 2018

This month’s edition of Family highlights includes details of guidance issued by the President of the Family Division on final hearings in adoption cases, family proceedings and parents with a learning disability and on defective divorce petitions. Other guidance issued includes the second edition of the Family Justice Council (FJC) guidance on financial needs on divorce and new FJC guidance on capacity to litigate in proceedings concerning children, together with local guidance on the first Financial Remedy Court pilot. The jurisdiction of the court to make an interim order for sale is considered, together with how the courts should approach relocation cases where care of the child has been shared. Decisions relating to the limited scope for the variation of capital orders, and kinship carers are also analysed, together with the Court of Appeal’s approach to future earning capacity and sharing in relation to periodical payments, as well as the extent to which capital should be deployed to meet income needs. In addition to links to analysis of other key...

Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—16 March 2017

Welcome to the weekly highlights from the Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution team for the week ending 16 March 2017. In this week’s edition, we feature the newly announced Business and Property Courts. We also highlight the latest Dispute Resolution News Analysis on a broad range of topics, including: costs and Part 36 (Marathon Asset); the Service Regulation (Henderson); European enforcement orders (Zulfikarpašić); and pre-action disclosure (Attheraces). We also highlight relevant News Analysis from other Lexis®PSL practice areas, the recent substantive amendments to our core content and our latest Q&As. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

Read the latest 2 News articles on Protection from Harassment Act 1997