Ashford Borough Council (for and on behalf of itself, its current and former officers, employees, councillors and agents) v Mr Fergus Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Daryl Allen |
| Judgment Date | 22 September 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 2542 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2020-602526 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 2542 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Daryl Allen QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
Case No: QB-2020-602526
Mr Adam Solomon QC and Mr Samuel Davis (instructed by the First Claimant) for the Claimants
Mr Alexander Deakin (instructed under the Direct Access Scheme) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 1 and 2 February 2021
Approved Judgment
Mr Daryl Allen QC:
The First Claimant [“ ABC”] is the local authority for the borough of Ashford in Kent. The Second Claimant is ABC's Chief Executive. They seek, on their own behalf and on behalf of the current and former officers, employees, councillors and agents of ABC, a final anti-harassment injunction against the Defendant.
The Defendant is a large-scale landlord in Kent. Together with his wife, he owns a very large number of residential rental properties in Kent. The precise ownership of those properties is not an issue in these proceedings. It would appear that some/all of the properties are in Mrs Wilson's name. Whatever the precise ownership arrangements, the Defendant certainly was and remains a driving force in the management of the properties and the Wilsons' dealings with ABC, its officers, councillors, employees and agents. Any reference to “the Defendant's properties” or similar in this judgment is simply a short-hand reference to the properties owned by the Defendant and/or his wife.
The Claimants' complaint is that over recent years the Defendant “ has developed, launched and escalated a campaign of harassment and intimidation against ABC and its current and former employees, officers, councillors and agents”, and that campaign “ has been intense and escalating since 17 January 2017, and especially recently.” [ C Skel §11].
The Defendant denies that he has harassed the Claimant as a matter of law or in fact. His case is that whilst some of his correspondence and communications might be characterised as offensive or even “ abhorrent”, his behaviour has not crossed the threshold required for it to be characterised as harassment within the terms of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 [“ the 1997 Act”].
I am grateful to Mr Solomon QC [assisted by Mr Davis] and Mr Deakin for the clarity and efficiency of the submissions.
Background
As stated, ABC is a local authority. It employs over 470 people. Pursuant to Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, ABC is a body corporate being the council for the district. Pursuant to Section 1(1) of the Localism Act 2011, ABC's general power of competence includes the “power to do anything that individuals generally may do”. The authorities make it plain that ABC is able to bring a claim in its own right as an individual victim under the 1997 Act or, as it does in this case, as a corporate claimant seeking an anti-harassment injunction to protect individuals who are its employees (in this case extending to its employees, officers, councillors and agents). No issue was taken as to ABC's locus or ability to bring these proceedings.
The Second Claimant is ABC's Chief Executive. She is also its head of Paid Services. She brings these proceedings in a representative capacity pursuant to CPR 19.6. Again, there was no objection to her locus or ability to bring these proceedings.
The Defendant's dealings with ABC extend back over the last two decades. As the relevant local authority, ABC has statutory responsibilities and powers in relation to rented housing within its boundaries. As a result the Defendant has dealt with ABC in relation to his property portfolio.
The Claimants' complaints relate, principally, to letters and emails sent by the Defendant.
The Second Claimant states, and I accept, that between February 2016 and July 2020, ABC's legal department recorded 454 pieces of correspondence from the Defendant [C2 W/S §21 @ TB 97]. Much of that correspondence has been included in the Trial Bundle. Whilst I do not propose to set out all of that correspondence, in the circumstances it is important that I set out the significant items relied upon by the Claimant. For the avoidance of doubt I have reviewed all of the correspondence and evidence in the bundles.
Correspondence prior to commencement of proceedings
The Defendant's dealings with ABC extend as far back as 2005. The relevant events for the purpose of these proceedings commence in late 2016 and I propose to pick up the chronology from there. At that time, the Defendant was writing and complaining to ABC in relation to his property portfolio. I do not have the correspondence setting out the detail of those complaints. However, they were summarised in a letter of response from Sharon Williams, ABC's then Head of Housing, to the Defendant dated 21 st October 2016 [ TB147],
“In recent weeks you have been repeatedly contacting the council (by letter, e-mail and telephone) over various matters where the council has had some involvement with your properties.
As a summary, it would appear the issues you raise relate to:
• Your belief that council officers advise your tenants facing eviction to ‘sit tight.’
• That council officers enter your properties without following the formal processes of notifying you and arranging permission.
• That officers have a lack of detailed knowledge in certain areas, specifically plumbing and boiler maintenance; and
• Your personal opinions of various council officers.
• Your assertion that it is the officers' actions which are causing you to evict your tenants.
• That once the Council contacts you, you deem that the repair issues becomes the council's responsibility.”
Ms Williams provided a substantive response to each complaint. Her letter concluded with the following observations [ TB148–149],
“Despite the volume and nature of your complaints, we consider a good deal of your concerns are without foundation …. and also expressing your personal opinion of officers ….
It is not for you to dictate who this council employs, on what terms or what their qualifications or suitability for a role should be. In addition we believe that you have received appropriate responses to the matters you are repeatedly writing to the Housing department about.
We have therefore reached the conclusion that your contact with this council is largely of a vexatious nature and as such we will not enter into any further correspondence with you on matters pertaining to your personal opinions of staff, your views on advice given to tenants, the matters covered above or historical cases. Such contact will merely be noted.
If you have any new issues you wish to raise in connection with matters relating to your tenants that require our involvement we will happily meet our obligations, but we will not engage on responding to your each and every personal, sometimes vitriolic opinion.
In addition, all future contact you have with the council on housing matters is to be made to myself in writing (either hard copy or e-mail). Colleagues have been advised not to engage in e-mail or written correspondence with you, and if you telephone they will politely but firmly remind you of the need to write to me. I will ensure appropriate action is taken with each new case or query you raise. Notwithstanding any legal proceedings that may be underway, in which case, you will be in contact with our legal services department and in this regard may continue to do so.”
On 2 nd March 2017, the Defendant wrote to Mr Mortimer, ABC's Director of Law and Governance and a qualified solicitor, to complain about Samantha Clarke [ TB171]. Ms Clarke is a member of ABC's legal department. Her name appears in much of the Defendant's correspondence. She is the subject of extensive professional and personal criticism by the Defendant. This letter is the Defendant's first documented complaint about Ms Clarke that is before me. In that letter he wrote,
“I have concerns about Samantha Clarke and give you the opportunity of resolving it before I refer it to the Law Society to determine which body deals with it. It is probably the Institute of Legal Executives.
…. …
It is clear to me that Ms Clarke does not understand the legal requirements of bundles, chronology, Case summary and papers on which you wish to rely.”
On 30 th September 2017, the Defendant wrote to Mr Gary Clarke, a Technical Officer, in ABC's Private Sector Housing Department. That letter [ TB199] includes the following paragraph,
“Firstly I am sorry that Public Sector workers get paid so little! I must tell you that you are not the most intelligent man I have ever met in my life!!”
That second sentence may or may not be correct. It is difficult to understand why it was included in the letter other than to cause offence to Mr Clarke. It a surprising remark to include when one considers the tone and content of the perfectly proper email sent by Mr Clarke to the Defendant and his wife on 29 th September 2017 [ TB200].
On 1 st October 2017, the Defendant wrote to Sharon Williams [ TB205]. Although that letter seeks to challenge two Environmental Protection Act Notices signed by Ms Williams and issued to the Defendant/his wife, it is in reality a personal attack on one of ABC's employees, “ W”. The letter is headed with that person's name and includes the following,
“Again I must write about W. W is a man of low intellectual ability and certainly in the 50 th to 70 th percentile. Local
Government Officers, like Policemen, tend to be in the 30 to 70 percentile.
W tells me has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashford Borough Council (for and on behalf of itself, its current and former officers, employees, councillors and agents) v Mr Fergus Wilson
...on 22 nd September 2021 and a judgment was handed down the same day by Deputy High Court Judge Daryl Allen KC, with neutral citation [2021] EWHC 2542 (QB). 37 In that judgment, the judge summarised the correspondence from the Defendant which led to the application for an injunction and whi......
-
Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Ltd (For And On Behalf Of Itself, Its Current And Former Officers, Employees And Agents, Including Its Legal Representatives, Messrs Simmons & Simmons) v Samantha Jane Bradley
...Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors & Anor v Rushton [2017] EWHC 1205, Ashford Borough Council & Another v Mr Fergus Wilson [2021] EWHC 2542, Pertemps Medical Group Limited v Imraan Ladak [2020] EWHC 163 and Cheshire West and Chester Council & Others v Robert Pickthall [2015] EWHC 2141......
-
Ashford Borough Council (for and on behalf of itself, its current and former officers, employees, councillors and agents) v Mr Fergus Wilson
...judgment in these proceedings which was handed down on 22 nd September 2021 [ Ashford Borough Council and Another v Wilson [2021] EWHC 2542 (QB)]. The background to the proceedings and the relief granted to the Claimants are set out in that judgment. In summary, the Claimants obtained a fi......