Fox v Hall
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE STEPHEN DAVIES
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Kevin Fox's action against Mr. Michael Hall for alleged harassment and claims under the Wilson Agreement was dismissed. The court determined Mr. Hall did not have personal liability under the Wilson Agreement, and the harassment claims did not meet the statutory requirements under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. All claims under the Wilson Agreement were deemed statute-barred. Consequently, Mr. Hall’s counterclaim was upheld, confirming his non-liability to Mr. Fox.
JUDGMENT
His Honour Judge Stephen Davies:
Introduction
1. This case demonstrates the pitfalls of: (a) engaging in debt recovery, other than through conventional means; (b) seeking without notice injunctions, without making full and proper disclosure of all relevant material; (c) being too ready to bring civil claims for harassment, when the conduct complained of does not, on proper analysis, fall within the definition of harassment; and (d) pursuing complicated civil claims without the benefit of full and proper legal analysis or advice.
2. In this case the claimant, Mr Kevin Fox, has in my judgment been guilty of (a), (c) and (d), whereas the defendant, Mr Michael Hall, has been guilty of (b) and (c). The end result of all of this is as follows:
(a) The claimant fails to establish the claims which he makes in the present action, both for harassment and for the claims the subject of his earlier attempts at debt recovery, and has wasted a great deal of time and effort in the pursuit of them;
(b) The defendant succeeds in establishing in this action that he has no liability to the claimant, but has already lost a previous action against the claimant, in which he complained that the claimant’s methods of debt recovery amounted to harassment, and has expended a great deal of time and cost, both financial and personal, as a result of the pursuit and ultimate failure of that claim.
3. By the present action the claimant claims that the defendant is liable to him by way of assignment in respect of claims arising under an agreement made as long ago as March 2002 (“the Wilson Agreement”).
The manner in which the defendant said that the claimant had gone about seeking to enforce those claims was the subject of an earlier action brought by the defendant against the claimant under (“ s.3 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 the 1997 Act ”) in which, after a 3 day trial, HHJ Seymour QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, found against the defendant in a judgment given on 19 July 2012.
In turn, the manner in which the defendant sought to defend himself against what he regarded as harassment by the claimant has now become the subject of the present action, in which the claimant seeks damages under the 1997 Act against the defendant for harassment. The defendant, as well as defending the claim, has counterclaimed for a declaration that he has no liability to the claimant in respect of the claims made under the Wilson Agreement. Finally, by amendment to the Particula