Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Bullying and harassmentEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusion

Legal Q&A: Protection from Harassment Act 1997

by Gemma Hay 3 Jan 2012
by Gemma Hay 3 Jan 2012

The case law takes a broad approach to the application of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, says employment lawyer Gemma Hay.

Protection from harassment

Crime-prevention defence under Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Employers may be vicariously liable under “stalking” legislation

Employee must show that there was “an element of real seriousness” to the harassment

Protection from harassment: “Oppressive and unacceptable” conduct is test for harassment

Damages for injury and distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

What is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997?

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits the pursuit of a “course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another”. Harassment is conduct that causes alarm or distress, and a course of conduct must involve such conduct on at least two occasions. The Act was originally introduced to deter stalkers but it also applies to workplace harassment.

How does it apply to the workplace?


The landmark decision where the Act was applied in an employment context was Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’s NHS Trust in 2006. Mr Majrowski claimed that he had been harassed at work by his line manager and the House of Lords ruled that the employer was vicariously liable for the behaviour of the manager who harassed him.

Why was the Majrowski case so important?

The decision was significant as it effectively extended the claims that an employee could bring against their employer if they felt that they had been the victim of harassment. Before this case, an employee was restricted to bringing claims of discrimination and/or personal injury, both of which present considerable legal hurdles for the employee to overcome. Following Majrowski, employees can bring harassment claims where they have suffered alarm, anxiety or distress, even where there is no allegation of discrimination or personal injury.

What amounts to a course of conduct?

After this decision, there was some worry that the floodgates would open with employee harassment claims under the Act. However, in Sunderland City Council v Conn in 2008, the Court of Appeal effectively raised the bar for what amounts to a course of conduct by explaining that “the touchstone for recognising what is not harassment … will be whether the conduct is of such gravity as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law”.

Have the floodgates opened for claims under the Protection from Harassment Act?

Risks still remain for employers; they need to be aware not only of the implications of the Act in the context of workplace harassment, but, critically, of what amounts to a “course of conduct”. Two recent cases, discussed below, shed some further light on this key definition under the Act and appear to be broadening its scope.

Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors

Mr Iqbal was a solicitor who worked as a sole practitioner. Before setting up his own practice, he had previously worked for Dean Manson, a small firm of solicitors. Several years after leaving the firm, Mr Iqbal represented an individual who was being sued by Dean Manson in the county court. During the course of that litigation, Dean Manson sent three letters to Mr Iqbal making various allegations against him.

The Court of Appeal held that each of the letters was capable of amounting to harassment under the Act. This was because each letter was a deliberate attack on Mr Iqbal’s personal integrity and was designed to pressure him to cease acting for the individual or advise his client to agree to Dean Manson’s demands. The Court went on to find that, even had the first two letters not amounted to harassment, a course of conduct could be established by taking all three letters together.

Marinello v City of Edinburgh Council

Mr Marinello was employed by the City of Edinburgh Council as a community service assistant. In September 2005, he was signed off work with depression and did not return.

In October 2005, Mr Marinello lodged a grievance complaining of a course of conduct occurring in 2004 and 2005 that amounted to bullying and harassment by two of his superiors. Part of his grievance was upheld.

In March 2007, Mr Marinello was walking along the street in Edinburgh when a white minibus veered towards him. One of the superiors, against whom he had raised a grievance, was driving. He sounded the horn and gesticulated at Mr Marinello with a clenched fist.

The Inner House of the Court of Session held that:


  • an interval of 17 months did not automatically exclude a connection in time between two events;

  • the fact that the March 2007 incident occurred in public and the previous incidents had occurred in the workplace was of little significance, given that Mr Marinello’s workplace was frequently a public place; and

  • the fact that Mr Marinello was not at work at the time of the March incident was of less significance than it might have been given that Mr Marinello was still employed by the council in the same department, under the same supervisors.

What is the importance of these cases for employers?

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

One principle that can be taken from the above cases is that, even where a seemingly innocuous comment is made, if this can be taken in context with previous comments or actions, this may be sufficient to establish a “course of conduct” under the Act. Even if there is a reasonable interval between the incidents, this may not be a bar on an employee bringing a claim.

Gemma Hay is a solicitor in the employment team at law firm Dundas & Wilson.

Gemma Hay

previous post
Three awards shortlisted for Jelf Employee Benefits
next post
2011 data highlights 17% year-on-year increase in job opportunities

You may also like

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Culture, ‘micro-incivilities’ and invisible talent

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Why fighting the DEI backlash is about PR...

9 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+