Practice group articles

Employment Tribunal statistics published
26 February 2010

The beneficial effects of workplace mediation
24 January 2010

Green light for employment claims | Religion and Belief
18 January 2010

Without prejudice communications can be admissible
17 January 2010

Default retirement age consultation
16 January 2010

Annual increase in tribunal awards
15 January 2010

Harassment claims must be 'worth the candle'

26 June 2009



Although there is no law in the UK that specifically protects against bullying in the workplace, an employee who is bullied or victimised can bring a claim for damages against their employer, under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PFHA), on the basis that the employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees.

The Civil Procedure Rules permit the striking out of a claim or allow a defendant to seek summary judgment against the claimant where it can be shown that the claim has no real prospect of success.

In Dowson and others v Northumbria Police, the judge’s reasons for striking out three of nine claims brought under the PFHA provide guidance on the essential elements necessary for a claim to succeed.

The claims centred largely on the conduct of one officer and arose out of an alleged clash between his personality and policing methods and those of the team of officers he took over. Some, but not all, of the particulars of harassment described by the officers appeared to arise tangentially rather than directly in that they concerned the senior officer’s approach to routine police work rather than acts or statements aimed directly at his junior officers.

The judge identified the principles that are relevant when scrutinising claims of harassment to see whether or not they are 'worth the candle':

1. It is incumbent on the claimant to allege conduct which is unreasonable. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable, the gravity of the misconduct must be such as to justify the sanctions of the criminal law;

2. The mere fact that the conduct complained of has foreseeably caused distress to an individual is not enough. The conduct must be calculated to produce alarm and distress. The requirement to establish an arguable case of oppression and unreasonableness must also be satisfied;

3. There must be a genuinely offensive and oppressive course of conduct. A complaint will fail if there is only a single instance of the conduct complained of;

4. The context in which the conduct occurs may well be important. What might be deemed harassment in one workplace might not be in another; and

5. The conduct must be targeted at the claimant.

In this case, the three claims were struck out because they did not satisfy the necessary requirements.

David Buckle, partner in the Employment law practice group at B P Collins, comments, "Unlike in discrimination claims, the statutory defence that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment is not available to employers when a claim is made under the PFHA. It is important to take positive action to eliminate employee behaviour of a kind that could cause distress and anxiety to others in the workplace and any incidence of bullying or harassment must be dealt with at once, to the satisfaction of the alleged victim."

For legal advice concerning harassment or bullying in the workplace please contact David Buckle on 01753 278659, complete the online enquiry form or email employmentlaw@bpcollins.co.uk.