|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Andresen & Anor v Lovell  EWHC 3397 (QB) (21 December 2009)
Cite as:  EWHC 3397 (QB)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| (1) JENNY ANDRESEN
(2) ANNE ANDRESEN
|- and -
Kerry Bretherton (instructed by YVA Solicitors) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 10 December 2009
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Eady :
"A person must not pursue a course of conduct–
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other."
Under the rubric "Civil remedy", s.3(1) states that:
"An actual or apprehended breach of [section 1(1)] may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question."
The words in square brackets were substituted by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
"I … started working with my mother in her cleaning business in 2008. I dealt with the sales ledger and general administrative jobs on a part time basis."
It is thus not immediately apparent what her locus standi was to bring proceedings to the extent that the objective was to protect the business from the Defendant's false Internet postings. It may be that the reference back to the allegation of 1990 was intended to give her claim more substance. It has been suggested on the Defendant's behalf that this tactic may have been adopted in order to protect the Second Claimant (as she now is) from an adverse order for costs. I cannot say whether this is so or not, but no clear explanation has so far been put forward.
"The Defendant later married a woman called Eveleyn, known as Ellen for short. I do not know the exact date of this marriage, but the family learned about it in 1996."
This is very odd when one sets alongside it the unchallenged facts that the marriage took place on 21 June 1995 and that the First Claimant herself attended it (together with her then boyfriend and parents). The Defendant has exhibited a photograph of them all present on that occasion. What is more, the Defendant remained married to the same woman for 14 years before a divorce which took place in May of this year. According to his evidence, however, he is now reconciled to her and living with her once again. This demonstrably false allegation about the wedding naturally suggests that her evidence needs to be approached with great caution. It is another example of the court having been misled.