Judge departs robust stance on harassment

Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd

(Court of Appeal – 2 December 2009)

The claimant, Miss Veakins, appealed against the first instance decision to dismiss her claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 where it was held that the conduct alleged did not amount to harassment. The claimant alleged that she had been subjected to harassment by her supervisor. The conduct consisted of an embarrassing public 'telling off' , being 'picked on' over matters such as time keeping, an incident where she was sworn at, and her letter of complaint being ripped up by her supervisor. She alleged that the behaviour left her feeling victimised and demoralised.  Unusually the defendant, Kier Islington Ltd, adduced no evidence to rebut the allegations

 

On appeal, the court held that the recorder had focused on the prospects for a criminal prosecution and had not paid sufficient attention to the requirement that the conduct be 'oppressive and unacceptable', in addition to  attracting criminal liability. Lord Justice Maurice Kay stated that this was an 'extraordinary' one sided case and that most incidents of workplace stress would not give rise to liability under the Act. He concluded that the supervisor’s conduct must have been “motivated by a desire… to force out an employee for whom she had a profound personal dislike”. He went on to emphasise that most claims of this nature should usually be pursued in the Employment Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

 

Comment

This appears to be a departure from the robust stance that the courts have taken to date in interpreting the Protection from Harassment Act. Despite Maurice Kay LJ stating that the case was 'extraordinary', it is questionable whether the conduct alleged could be considered as such. However the details of the supervisor’s behaviour are sparse and set against the backdrop of uncontested allegations and medical evidence. The case does preserve the requirement that conduct must be oppressive and unacceptable in addition to being criminal and should be considered on its own facts.

- Vanessa Latham, BLM London

This law report first appeared in Post Magazine on 4 February 2010

<<< Back