Jones and another v Ruth and another [2011] EWCA Civ 804, [2011] All ER (D) 112 (Jul)
Foreseeability of the injury or loss sustained by a claimant in a case of harassment was not an essential element in the cause of action. Conduct of the kind described in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s 1 was actionable under s 3 in respect of anxiety or injury caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment. There was nothing in the statutory language to import an additional requirement of foreseeability. Nor was the foreseeability of damage the gist of the tort.
Section 1 was concerned with deliberate conduct of a kind which the defendant knew or ought to have known would amount to harassment of the claimant. Once that was proved the defendant was responsible in damages for the injury and loss which flow from that conduct. There was nothing in the nature of the cause of action which called for further qualification in order to give effect to the obvious policy objectives of the statute.
