Neighbour disputes: defamation and harassment

Live for thy neighbor if thou wouldst live for thyself.”

For whatever reason, and often through no fault of our own, neighbour disputes can arise. They can take many forms – loud noises at odd hours, passive aggressive behaviour or, worse, an online campaign of harassment. High net worth individuals are particularly vulnerable as those disputes can have a secondary component in escalating quickly and attracting unwanted media attention, especially in circumstances where the individual or individuals have a public profile.  

Defamation
 

The problem with disputes with one’s neighbours is that they feel, quite literally, “close to home”. A neighbour posting statements about us online on Facebook, Instagram or YouTube can feel oppressive and concerning, even if the audience with whom the posts are shared is not very large.

The threshold for defamation is that it must cause serious harm to your reputation. In the event that it does, you may have an actionable claim. More often than not, a legal letter can put an end to the problematic conduct, but it is important to seek legal advice at an early stage. A particular consideration is how you conduct yourself in that situation. Whilst it can be tempting to respond in kind when being defamed, it can prejudice the viability of your claim. Each case must, of course, be determined on its own facts.

In Wozniak v Randall, awards were made of £7,500 to each member of a neighbouring couple following publication of nine articles on a community website in which they were described as liars, thieves and bullies. The circulation was very small, having only been published to 25 households, but even so the readership were all located in a small community and was sufficient for the Court to determine that the effect was significant. While the damages were not high, the vindication provided by the judgment was no doubt invaluable.

Harassment

Neighbour disputes can also involve a prolonged campaign of harassment.

Criminal harassment occurs when causing or being exposed to conduct which causes significant distress and anxiety. An assessment would need to be made of the severity of the harassment, but one course of action may be to report the matter to the police. However, with the pressure on police resources, they may not take the matter sufficiently seriously and instead advise you to seek civil advice.

Civil harassment occurs when the conduct complained of causes serious alarm or distress on two or more occasions. It can lead to an actionable claim, an injunction, the payment of damages and the costs of that litigation.

In the recent case of Sully v Mazur, an injunction was obtained by a neighbour involved in the dispute as the Court found that they were likely to establish at trial that the defendants had pursued a course of conduct amounting to harassment. An injunction is only an interim remedy and one that is obtained early. The Court grants an injunction as a way to preserve the position until a final determination can be made at trial.

In Gilert v Wilkinson, undertakings (i.e. an unbreakable promise) were given by one side of the neighbour dispute. An undertaking is typically given as a way to avoid ongoing litigation. In this case, the undertakings were breached and led to a custodial term as breaching an undertaking to the Court can lead to a finding of contempt of court.

A cautionary tale which reinforces the need to complete due diligence into the background surrounding the offensive acts of one’s neighbour is in the recent case of Casey v Burgoyne. Here, an adjoining neighbour had been accused of harassment where: (i) an electricity supply had been disconnected; (ii) the neighbour's water supply had been briefly interrupted due to the freezing of a pipe; and (iii) flooding had occurred from a pond overflow. These acts were found not to be malicious as there were extenuating circumstances which had led to the various issues. As a result, the complaining neighbour was unsuccessful in their claim.

Data Protection

A common misconception is that it is against the law to prepare audio and/or video recordings of a neighbour as such constitutes a breach of data protection rights. Whilst there are limits to what should be recorded and shared, it is permissible to take a recording of a conversation if the use is for a domestic (i.e. not-commercial) purpose.

It is advisable to take advice on whether you have grounds for a legal complaint against your neighbour before making it given the obligation to disclose any dispute when you sell a property as such could act as a barrier to a sale.

It is also advisable to take advice before taking any steps in the dispute in circumstances where the individual or individuals involved have a public profile as the disputes can attract media attention and/or lead to adverse publicity.

further information

If you have any questions or concerns about the topics raised in this blog, please contact Helen Morris or Ben Atkin.

about the author

Helen leads Kingsley Napley’s successful Reputation and Media team and is a highly regarded litigator with over 20 years of experience. Helen has a proven track record of representing both claimants and defendants who are facing damaging attacks on their reputation, and has worked on a range of high-profile defamation, privacy, harassment and data protection cases.

Ben is a senior litigation lawyer and solicitor advocate in the Dispute Resolution team. He advises clients on a wide variety of matters including corporate/commercial disputes, contentious intellectual property, and media related litigation including in relation to defamation, libel and privacy matters, many of which have a high profile in the national press. He has experience in the County Court, High Court and Supreme Court as well as experience in resolving disputes without the need for litigation via various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution.