Undefined

Tuppen and another v Microsoft Corporation Ltd and another (TLR 15 November QBD)

The claimants had produced counterfeit computer goods and passed them off as goods produced by Microsoft. They alleged that Microsoft had subsequently harassed them by suborning the police into raiding one of their homes, by conducting oppressive litigation, by suborning witnesses into lying and telephoning one of the claimants late at night. No definition of harassment is contained in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 but, because of the wide potential and far-reaching meaning of ‘harassment’, it was legitimate to have recourse to the parliamentary record as an aid to construction. It was plain from a study of the speeches what kind of behaviour was being directed at and sought to be controlled. The Act was directed at the prevention of stalking, anti-social behaviour by neighbours and racial harassment. Apart from the telephone call, which was an isolated incident, none of the activities complained of came anywhere near falling under the prohibition of the Act, and the claimants had no prospect of succeeding in their claim. The evidence failed to support any case of harassment by a course of conduct actionable under the Act.