Hammond v International Network Services UK Ltd

An employee’s nine separate allegations of ‘harassment’ in breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 were rejected by the High Court. Even if the alleged incidents had taken place, they were not serious enough to satisfy the definition of harassment under the Act, which requires the claimant to establish oppressive and unreasonable conduct.

One key factor is that in claiming a breach of statutory duty under the Act which leads to personal injury, the claimant is not required to establish that the injury was reasonably foreseeable, whereas a claim in negligence does, making a negligence claim much harder toprove.  

Another factor is that Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust Ltd [2006] IRLR 695 established that the  employer can be held to be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees under the Act. 

Under S.1 of the Act, a person must not pursue a course of conduct which: (a)amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he or she knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. 

Under S.2 of the Act, a person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of S.1 is guilty of a criminal offence and a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 

Mr Hammond alleged that his clinical depression was caused by nine separate alleged acts of harassment contrary to the Act. He claimed that, while working on a project in Dublin his manager had excluded him from a social meal arranged for the team and prevented him gaining access to a computer application necessary for his work. 

He also claimed that his manager shouted at him in front of his colleagues for being late; cancelled his hotel accommodation and moved himinto an unhygienic apartment; made unfoundedallegations as to his performance, resulting in histransition from the Dublin project; and instructed him to cancel his holiday in December 2000 to prevent staffing shortages.  

He further claimed that another manager hadrefused him necessary training; had made threatening telephone calls; and had removed him from different project. All of the allegations were rejected by the High Court. The judge noted that Mr Hammond could not produce contemporaneous documents, or any other compelling evidence in support of his allegations, which were wholly without merit. 

But although the lack of supporting evidence was fatal to Mr Hammond’s claim, even if the allegations had been proved they would not give rise to a claim under the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, the Judge relied on Lord Nicholls’ comments in Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust Ltd that to give rise to liability under theAct, conduct would have to be oppressive andunreasonable and calculated to cause distress. His Lordship also thought that the conduct should be of such gravity as to be capable of sustaining criminal liability under S.2  

While the employee lost his claim, this case is a timely reminder to employers to make it clear to employees in staff handbooks and policy documents that harassment is a criminal offence, as well as being prohibited under all strands of employment anti-discrimination legislation, and that if such a case is proved, both the harasser and the employer can be convicted and face a prison sentence or a fine of up to £5,000.  

High Court (QBD), 2007 EWHC 2604