Employers may encounter disgruntled ex-employees at some point, typically after dismissing a staff member due to poor performance, misconduct or other reasons. Most often, employee complaints will either be resolved informally or be handled through the employer’s disciplinary, appeal or grievance procedure. In extreme cases, unfortunately, an ex-employee’s behaviour may amount to unlawful harassment of the business owner or managers. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA), states that individuals may bring civil claims to prevent further harassing conduct under an injunction to restrain the individual and for damages to compensate for anxiety and financial loss to the individual (remedies which are not available in the criminal courts). An emergency injunction is a legal remedy that can be sought in urgent situations where immediate action is required to prevent harm or damage. It is a court order that prohibits a person from doing something, or requiring them to take a specific action. Typically injunctions are expensive if paying for legal representation, as well as complex and time-consuming, particularly for small businesses, but may be pursued where other alternatives do not offer an effective remedy.
In this recent civil claim, the High Court continued an interim injunction against a former employee at an asset management company who worked in a management position, who was dismissed at the end of his probationary period. The interim injunction restrained him from approaching or communicating with the business's founder (the claimant) and from carrying out his threat to publish material to third parties, on grounds that his conduct was likely to amount to harassment under the PHA.
By way of background, the High Court heard evidence that at some point following his dismissal, the ex-employee turned up at the claimant's home unannounced and blocked the driveway for some 3 hours. The High Court ruled that emails and a WhatsApp message received from the ex-employee were likely to be found to be deliberate, unacceptable, oppressive, highly objectionable and of a gravity that would amount to criminal liability under the PHA. On the evidence, their tone was intimidating. They threatened to ruin the claimant's business and to damage the claimant's personal reputation. The communications went into great detail about how that would be achieved, both through a mass email campaign and through the use of covert recordings and documents the ex-employee had accessed and/or retained unlawfully. There was also a threat of physical violence.