Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Rix,Lady Justice Smith,Lord Justice Richards |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 123 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2010/0959 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 15 February 2011 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CROYDON COUNTY COURT
Mr Justice Teare
Before : Lord Justice Rix
Lady Justice Smith
and
Lord Justice Richards
Case No: B2/2010/0959
9CR20347
Mr Mashood Iqbal (Litigant in person) for the Appellant
Mr Christopher Brown (instructed by Thompson & Co Solicitors) for the Respondents
Hearing dates : Wednesday 24 th November 2010
Lord Justice Rix :
This appeal concerns a claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the "Act") brought by a solicitor-advocate, Mr Mashood Iqbal, here the appellant, against a small firm of solicitors, Dean Manson Solicitors, the respondents, by whom he used to be employed. His complaint arises from a series of allegations which they have made against his professional and personal integrity. As such, the case may seem to lie rather far from the kernel of the mischief which no doubt led to the Act's enactment, which was the stalking of women. However, it is clear that the Act has a wider ambit than that, and it is important to bear in mind that this claim arrives in this court at a still preliminary stage, before trial: for it has been summarily struck out as not presenting an arguable case of harassment within the Act.
The appeal came before us as a renewed application for permission to appeal, adjourned by Aikens LJ to the full court, with appeal to follow if permission was granted. This is a second appeal, and therefore Mr Iqbal, who represented himself, had to meet the high burden laid down by CPR 52.13. Nevertheless, we granted him permission and went on to allow the appeal, thereby reinstating his claim. These are my reasons for that decision.
The three letters
Mr Iqbal complains in particular of three letters as constituting a course of conduct amounting to harassment within the terms of the Act. I shall set out the three letters below, but before doing so it is necessary to say a little about the background to them.
In February and March 2006 Mr Iqbal worked part time as an assistant solicitor for Dean Manson. On 31 March 2006 he ceased his employment with them. At the time of his employment with them, Dean Manson had as clients a Mr and Mrs Tahir, on whose file they say Mr Iqbal worked. Dean Manson alleged they had the benefit of a guarantee for fees owed to them by the Tahirs from a Mr Butt. In January 2009 Dean Manson issued proceedings in the Leeds county court against Mr Butt under the alleged guarantee and against the Tahirs. Mr Butt instructed Mr Iqbal, now running his own firm of solicitors under the name of Ahmads' Solicitors of Putney, London, to act for him in those proceedings. It was in that context that Dean Manson wrote the following series of letters to Ahmads for the attention of Mr Iqbal. The principal (and only full) partner of Dean Manson whose name at that time was on its stationery was Mr Muzaffar Mansoor, and it was his initials, MM, which were identified in the letters' reference numbers.
The first of the three letters was dated 28 January 2009, was captioned with the name of Dean Manson's proceedings against Mr Butt (as were all three), and read as follows:
"As you are acting for the Defendant we would like to raise a few questions in relation to your integrity as a solicitor acting in this matter, in particular whether you are satisfied before your client that you can act independently and impartially for your client and in his best interests.
We understand that you are a sole practitioner and therefore you are dealing with this matter in person.
Will your client be satisfied if he comes to know that you were in the past supervised by the Partners of our firm? Thanks to their blessing you were able to become who you are now. They made several recommendations for you. You were also employed by our firm in the past. Was your departure from the firm amicable or have you any issues in relation to your employment and departure still outstanding?
This is an open letter, which will be presented in court if needed."
The second letter, dated 17 February 2009, was as follows:
"In essence we understand that the defendants Mr and Mrs Naseem Ahmad Tahir were personal contacts of yours and you have also worked on the file during your employment at Dean Manson Solicitors. We therefore believe that this raises serious conflict and conduct issues on your part since your departure from Dean Manson Solicitors was not pleasant and you were summarily dismissed due to your insubordination and reckless conduct in dealing clients' matters and entering into unnecessary argument in court with immigration judge.
We are therefore inclined to believe that you have intentionally taken instructions in this matter to set scores because of your personal vendetta with the firm. We suggest this because we have also come to know that you have been poaching and inciting clients of the firm belonging to a particular community to initiate malicious complaints before third parties. There is indicative of clear conflict involving ethical issues as you have been working on this file and have personal knowledge of the firm and its partners.
We are very surprised that you are defending the clients in this matter since you are aware of the amount of work that has gone into this matter and the complex nature of the case whilst you worked with the firm. We will therefore advise you that you ask Mr Butt to settle our costs as it will prolong matters and incur unnecessary costs of litigation due to your own vendetta. All legal work carried out in accordance with his own instructions and personal guarantees (verbal and in writing) also confirmed through his MP to pay our legal costs for his release and hence he has no defence…"
A copy of that letter was sent by Dean Manson to the Leeds county court, as was indicated at the foot of the letter itself.
The third letter was dated 26 February 2009. It too was sent to the Leeds county court ("Copy to court"). It read as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of 18 February 2009 we suggest that you wait for the decision of your premature and irrational application for strike off. We will state our position in defence before the Court should the need arise.
We will also put you on strict notice that your former partner Mr Sajjid Ali had also worked with and passed out from this firm who had personal knowledge of the partners and the firm with whom you using his name later established partnership with thereby misleading the law society and general public unbefitting of the legal profession because Mr Ali has no permission to remain and work in the UK in breach of the law of land. We believe it is important for the court to know of you and your partner's level of past association with our firm."
The essential issue on this appeal is not whether these letters constitute a course of conduct amounting to harassment within the Act, but whether they are capable of amounting to such. If they are, then the matter may have to go to trial. If they are not, then the claim should be summarily stopped at this preliminary stage.
Mr Iqbal's claim
Mr Iqbal drafted and lodged his particulars of claim in the Croydon county court on 26 February 2009, after receiving the second letter cited above, dated 17 February 2009. He had not yet received the third letter, and it is not mentioned in his particulars. However, on behalf of Dean Manson, and after taking instructions in court, their counsel, Mr Christopher Brown, informed us that no point was taken on the absence of mention of that letter in the particulars. It had been considered by both judges below as if it had been mentioned in the particulars of claim. That is possibly because the third letter had been mentioned in the witness statement that Mr Iqbal had made on 4 March 2009 in support of his application made that day for an interim injunction to restrain Dean Manson from further acts of harassment: "by writing offensive, threatening, intimidating & harassing letters whether directly or indirectly and whether actually or potentially aim[ed] at damaging the professional and personal integrity of the Claimant".
Mr Iqbal's claim form was issued by the Croydon county court on 12 March 2009. It was lodged by Mr Iqbal and issued as a Part 7 claim form. CPR 65.28 (Part 65 deals specifically with anti-social behaviour and harassment, and section V of Part 65 deals specifically with claims under section 3 of the Act) in fact requires proceedings under the Act to be "subject to the Part 8 procedure". The Part 8 procedure is the simplified procedure suitable for claims where a claimant "seeks the court's decision on a question unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact" ( CPR 8.1(2)(a)). There is plainly an intent to streamline civil claims under the Act and an expectation that the Part 8 procedure will suffice.
Mr Iqbal's particulars also complained about letters sent by Dean Manson in December 2006, two each to the principal partners of two firms of solicitors for whom Mr Iqbal was then working on a part time basis: but he has not pressed his complaint about the earlier letters.
Dean Manson served their defence on 25 March 2009. It is a lengthy document, affirmed by Mr Mansoor personally, and attaching numerous exhibits. Among the matters raised in the defence are the following, whose scandalous nature could only be justified, if that were possible, by their truth. In effect, Dean Manson and Mr Mansoor alleged that Mr Iqbal had been shown nothing but kindness and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yvonne Ameyaw v Christina McGoldrick
...to take account of (among other cases), the trio of decisions in the Iqbal v Dean Manson litigation: the two Court of Appeal decisions [2011] EWCA Civ 123 and [2013] EWCA Civ 149, and my own decision at first instance, [2014] EWHC 2418 (QB). Negligence 137 The Claim Form and paragraph 23 ......
-
Jalena Vaickuviene And Others V. J. Sainsbury Plc
...SC 736. At para [11] the court expressed its agreement with the following observations by Rix LJ in Iqbal v Dean Manson, Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123: "In my judgment, the Act is concerned with courses of conduct which amount to harassment, rather than with individual instances of harassm......
-
Avb v Tdd
...speech". 50 Mr Bennett submits that a course of conduct is to be interpreted in accordance with the guidance of Rix LJ in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123. In that case a solicitor advocate brought a claim in harassment against the firm with whom he had previously worked a......
-
David Neil Gerrard v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd
...of conduct amounts to harassment; instead, the focus is on the course of conduct taken as a whole (see Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] IRLR 428, Rix LJ at [45]: “[t]he course of conduct cannot be reduced to or deconstructed into the individual acts, taken solely one by one.”) (d) The ......
-
Table of Cases
...Crim LR 409, DC 226 Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655, [1997] 2 WLR 684, [1997] 2 All ER 426, HL 184 Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123, [2011] CP Rep 26, [2011] IRLR 428, [2011] All ER (D) 163 (Feb) 189–190 Jeffrey v Black [1978] QB 490, [1977] 3 WLR 895, [1978] 1 All ER ......
-
Cyber Harassment and Cyber Stalking
...instances that are said to make up the course of conduct need not be harassing on their own. In Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123, the Court of Appeal 7 held that: 7 Comprised of Rix LJ, Smith LJ and Richards LJ. 190 Cyber Crime: Law and Practice In my judgment, the [PHA 19......