- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff, a self-employed property investor, was formerly a customer of the Defendant, a major energy supplier. The Plaintiff ceased her contract with the Defendant on 25 May 2006 and switched to another supplier on the same day. Despite this, from 21 August 2006 until at least late January 2007, the Defendant repeatedly sent bills and threatening letters to the Plaintiff, including threats to disconnect gas supply, commence legal proceedings, and report her to credit rating agencies. The Plaintiff made numerous attempts to resolve the issue through letters, phone calls, complaints to the energy watchdog, and correspondence via her solicitor, but the Defendant’s conduct persisted with little or no response or meaningful resolution.
The Plaintiff brought a claim against the Defendant alleging unlawful harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, seeking damages for distress, anxiety, and financial loss. The Defendant applied to strike out the claim on grounds that the conduct did not meet the legal threshold for harassment and raised a technical point regarding corporate liability. The strike-out application was initially refused by the Deputy High Court Judge, who also refused permission to appeal. The Defendant then obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant’s conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, satisfying the required gravity threshold to constitute a civil wrong and criminal offence.
- Whether a large corporation such as the Defendant can be held liable for harassment absent proof that a directing mind or an identifiable employee responsible for the conduct existed within the company (the corporate liability point).
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The Defendant contended that the repeated billing and threatening letters, though regrettable, did not reach the level of gravity necessary to constitute harassment under the 1997 Act (the "gravity test").
- They argued that the claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and should be struck out without proceeding to trial.
- On corporate liability, the Defendant submitted that liability requires proof that the conduct was directed by a senior individual constituting the "directing mind" of the company or was committed by an employee for whom the company is vicariously liable. Neither was pleaded here, so the claim must fail on this basis.
- They also suggested that because the conduct was computer-generated, it should be treated less seriously.
- The Defendant introduced witness statements to support their strike-out application, but these were not relied upon in court.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s persistent and unjustified conduct amounted to harassment causing distress and anxiety, warranting damages.
- She emphasized that the threats were serious, including disconnection of gas supply and adverse credit reporting, which would cause real anxiety to a reasonable person.
- The Plaintiff maintained that the Defendant should be held responsible for the failings of its computer system and personnel operating it.
- She contended that the corporate liability point should not bar the claim, as knowledge of employees should be attributed to the company, and the Defendant ought to have known that its conduct amounted to harassment.
- The Plaintiff’s primary objective was to hold the Defendant accountable and promote responsible corporate conduct, rather than personal gain.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Majrowski v Guys and St. Thomas's NHS Trust [2007] AC 224 | Confirmed that harassment must be sufficiently grave to sustain criminal liability; introduced the "gravity test" to distinguish unacceptable conduct from mere annoyances. | The court applied Lord Nicholls’ and Baroness Hale’s guidance on the gravity threshold and the need to separate serious harassment from everyday irritations, concluding the Defendant’s conduct could meet this test. |
| Sunderland v Conn [2008] EWCA Civ 148 | Held that workplace disputes, though a course of conduct, did not amount to harassment due to insufficient gravity. | Used to illustrate that not all repeated conduct is harassment; contrasted with the present case where the conduct was more persistent and threatening. |
| Allen v Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 1478 | Refused to strike out a harassment claim involving wrongly issued possession proceedings; emphasized "oppressive and unacceptable" conduct. | Supported the proposition that serious persistent conduct can amount to harassment warranting civil remedy. |
| Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 | Established the "directing mind" doctrine for corporate liability; a company’s liability depends on acts and knowledge of senior individuals or vicarious liability for employees. | The court considered the applicability of this doctrine to harassment claims, provisionally concluding it may not fully apply under the Protection from Harassment Act. |
| Essendon Engineering v Maile [1982] Crim. L.R. 510 | Post-Tesco authority on corporate liability principles. | Considered among other cases to assess the scope of corporate liability under the Act. |
| Group Newspapers v SOGAT [1987] I.C.R. 181 | Post-Tesco authority relevant to corporate liability and attribution of knowledge. | Considered in the court’s provisional analysis of corporate liability. |
| Tesco v Brent [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1037 | Distinguished Tesco v Nattrass in the context of statutory defences and knowledge attribution. | Used to illustrate that statutory language and policy affect corporate liability rules; relevant to interpreting the Protection from Harassment Act. |
| Re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No.2) [1995] 1 A.C. 456 | Considered corporate knowledge and attribution principles. | Referenced in the discussion of the construction of corporate liability under the Act. |
| Meridian Global Funds Management Asia v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500 | Clarified that attribution of knowledge to a company depends on construction of the relevant substantive rule. | Guided the court’s provisional view that the Protection from Harassment Act’s corporate liability should be interpreted on its own terms, not by analogy to other statutes. |
| Re British Steel [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1356 | Post-Tesco authority on corporate liability. | Included in the court’s survey of relevant authority. |
| Cambridgeshire CC v Kama [2006] EWHC 3148 | Relevant to corporate liability and attribution of knowledge. | Considered as part of the broader legal context. |
| Moore v. I. Bresler Ltd. [1944] 2 All E.R. 515 | Example of attributing mens rea of an employee to a company for statutory offences. | Supported the proposition that knowledge of employees may be attributed to the company under certain statutes. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first considered the "gravity test" derived from Majrowski and Sunderland, which requires that conduct must be sufficiently serious to justify criminal sanctions before it can be deemed harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The court found the Defendant’s persistent and threatening conduct towards the Plaintiff—continuing bills, threats of disconnection, legal action, and adverse credit reporting—could reasonably be regarded as crossing the threshold into "oppressive and unacceptable conduct." The court rejected the Defendant’s suggestion that the Plaintiff’s knowledge that the claims were unjustified or that the conduct was computer-generated diminished the seriousness or impact of the conduct.
On corporate liability, the court examined the Defendant’s argument that liability requires proof of a "directing mind" or vicarious liability for an employee’s acts, citing Tesco v Nattrass and related authorities. The court noted that Tesco was decided under different statutory provisions and that the Protection from Harassment Act does not contain a defence akin to that in the Trade Descriptions Act. The court provisionally concluded that the Defendant could be liable if it "ought to have known" that the conduct amounted to harassment, a knowledge standard assessed by the hypothetical reasonable person possessing the same information as the Defendant. The court emphasized that it is for the Plaintiff to identify the course of conduct and that the burden then shifts to the Defendant to explain its knowledge or lack thereof. The court expressed doubt that a corporate defence of ignorance or incompetence would succeed under the Act’s language.
The court also highlighted the importance of not allowing large corporations to evade liability for conduct that would render an individual liable, stressing that the legal personality of a company does not exempt it from harassment claims. The court acknowledged that the corporate liability point was not fully argued and that the issue would be better resolved after a full trial and factual inquiry.
In sum, the court held that the Defendant’s strike-out application was unfounded because the claim was at least arguable both on the gravity of the conduct and on corporate liability grounds, and therefore the matter must proceed to trial.
Holding and Implications
The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the Defendant’s appeal against refusal to strike out the claim.
The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s claim for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 will proceed to trial. The court’s decision reinforces that persistent and unjustified threatening conduct by a corporation can meet the legal threshold for harassment and that a corporation cannot easily avoid liability by pointing to the conduct of computer systems or lower-level employees. No new binding precedent was established on the precise test for corporate liability under the Act, as the court reserved detailed consideration of that issue for trial when all facts are known.
Alert