GB - Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust & Ors v Shaikh

Judgment

Sir David Eady :

Introduction

These committal proceedings arise out of an order made on 9 May 2014 of which it is currently alleged that there have been no less than 40 breaches over the succeeding months. The application notice was issued in July and contained 19 specific instances. At the commencement of the hearing, I allowed an amendment which added a further 26. (Some were not pursued, as explained below.)

The First Claimant is the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) and the Second to Fifth Claimants either work or have worked at Harefield Hospital, a hospital owned and operated by the Trust. The Defendant was also employed there as a trainee cardiac physiologist from March 2007 until June 2009, when he was dismissed for gross misconduct.

On 3 February 2011, the Independent Safeguarding Authority (whose functions are now carried out by the Disclosure and Barring Service) included the Defendant on the Adults’ Barred List and on 6 June 2012 his name was added to the Children’s Barred List. Those decisions meant that he was barred from carrying out certain regulated activities with, respectively, vulnerable adults and children. An appeal was rejected by the Upper Tribunal on 31 July 2014.

It seems clear that the Defendant resented his experiences at the hospital and also his dismissal. Unfortunately, he began to vent his frustrations by harassing and defaming the Claimants via the internet. Proceedings were therefore issued on 10 and served on 14 March of this year. In due course, judgment was entered in default on 9 May. It was on that occasion also that the injunction was granted in respect of which it is now said that the Defendant has been in breach.

In July 2014, His Honour Judge Moloney QC awarded damages to the Claimants for harassment and libel totalling £150,000. That assessment was made pursuant to a direction also given on 9 May.

The injunction of 9 May contained the following material provisions:

“2 The Defendant must not (whether by himself or by instructing or encouraging any other person):

(a) Harass any or all of the Second to Fifth Claimants or any of the current or former employees of the First Claimant identified in Schedule B;

(b) Communicate with any or all of the Claimants, whether by telephoning, text message, e-mail, or any other means (other than by letter and/or email addressed to the Claimants’ solicitors or by telephoning the Claimants’ solicitors);