Flexible Approach Applied In Granting Preliminary Injunction To Prevent Party Harassing Opponent's Solicitors

• Published date: 04 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills
• Author: Mr Neil Blake and Maura McIntosh

In a recent decision, the High Court has upheld a decision granting a novel injunction which prohibited a defendant from abusing, harassing, assaulting or threatening the claimant's solicitors until trial or further order: Linemile Properties Ltd v Plater [2023] EWHC 810 (Ch).

The defendant argued that the interim injunction should not have been granted as it did not protect a legal or equitable right which the court had jurisdiction to enforce by final judgment, in particular because the solicitors were not party to the action and there was no pleaded claim corresponding to the injunction sought. The court rejected that argument, finding that it was well within the court's power and discretion.

The decision is of interest in applying the flexible approach to the grant of an interim injunction reflected in the decision of a majority of the Privy Council in Broad Idea International Ltd v Convov Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24 (considered here). Contrary to the defendant's argument in the present case, the decision makes it clear that Broad Idea, while not technically binding on the English court, has fundamentally altered the court's approach to granting interim injunctions, superseding the more restrictive approach reflected in the House of Lords decision in Siskina v Distos CiaNaviera SA (The Siskina) [1979] AC 210.

Under this approach, there is no longer the need to establish a pre-existing cause of action to enforce the legal or equitable right which is to be protected by the injunction, or to bring the case within other recognised categories such as anti-suit injunctions or freezing orders. The court's discretion is a broad one.

Background

The underlying litigation concerned a dispute about the exercise and condition of a right of way in favour of the claimants over a road on the defendants' land. The particulars of claim included a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 involving allegations of "assault, threats and other reprehensible conduct" by the second defendant.

Following a verbal exchange between the second defendant and the claimant's solicitor, when the solicitor sought to visit his clients' property, the court granted an injunction preventing the defendants from (in summary) abusing, harassing, assaulting, threatening, physically approaching or speaking directly to the claimant's solicitors.

The judge (HHJ Dodd) considered that the injunction was justified as the claimants were entitled to have their legal advisers come to their...