Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 1855 (KB)
Case No: KB-2024-001672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 18/07/2024
Before :
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE AIDAN EARDLEY KC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
RBT Claimant
- and –
YLA Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Mitchell (instructed by JMW Solicitors LLP) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
Hearing dates: 12 July 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 18 July 2024 by circulation to the
parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
Approved Judgment RBT v YLA
Aidan Eardley KC :
Introduction
1. On 12 July 2024, at a return date hearing, I continued until trial or further order the
injunction granted by Steyn J on 7 June 2024, as varied by Kerr J on 21 June 2024
with some further modifications of my own. These are my reasons. They are
necessarily unspecific in some respects in order not to undermine the anonymity order
presently in place.
Background
2. The Claimant is the founder and chairman of an asset management company (the
Business). In 2023 the Business appointed the Defendant to a management position.
There were a number of complaints made about the Defendant’s conduct at work
which, in fairness to the Defendant, I should say he disputes. The Business therefore
decided to dismiss him before the end of his probationary period. The Defendant
initiated Employment Tribunal proceedings for unfair dismissal. These were struck
out because he had not been employed for the minimum period necessary to make
such a claim.
3. The Claimant states that, at some point after his dismissal, the Defendant turned up at
the Claimant’s home unannounced and blocked the driveway for some 3 hours. The
Claimant says that he only became aware that it was the Defendant when he went to
drive out of his property. He says he was initially startled but then said, in a joking
way, that the Defendant should not sneak up on people like that because he could get
shot (the Claimant lives in a rural area). The Claimant then invited the Defendant in to
his home and they spoke. The Defendant pleaded for his job back but the Claimant
said that this was a matter for the HR department and nothing to do with him. This
incident is not relied upon as part of a harassing course of conduct, but it is relevant
background.
4. On 31 May and 1 June 2024 the Defendant sent communications to the Claimant and
then on 4 June 2024 to two individuals closely involved with the Claimant and the
Business. I describe these communications in further detail below. It is these
communications that precipitated the Claimant’s application for an interim injunction
in harassment and which are now relied upon in the Particulars of Claim as
constituting a course of conduct amounting to harassment.
History of the Proceedings
5. The Claimant issued an application on 6 June 2024 and it was heard by Steyn J on 7
June 2024. She was satisfied that it was appropriate to proceed without notice (even
informal notice) being given to the Defendant. She granted an interim injunction
which, in summary, prohibits the Defendant from (a) physically approaching the
Claimant or his family; (b) making any direct contact by any means with the
Claimant, his family, his business or his staff; and (c) publishing, communicating or
disclosing any information to any third party about the Claimant, his family, his
business or his staff.
6. The injunction also ordered the Defendant, by 14 June 2024, to serve on the
Claimant’s solicitor (a) copies of all communications he has published,
