Interim Injunction secured in Neighbour Harassment Case under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

PJR & JAR v SZ & DS (8 October 2025 – Burnley County Court)

We successfully secured an interim injunction for our clients, a husband and wife who assert they have been subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment by their neighbour and her male associate. The reported harassment includes physical assault, verbal abuse, criminal damage to vehicles, interference with property and access rights, and restricting use of a shared driveway by installing a locked gate, dumping excrement, and emptying a bag of faeces.

Our clients brought a civil claim under Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, seeking an injunction to restrain the Defendants’ behaviour and damages for the distress and inconvenience suffered. Pending the determination of that main claim, we applied for interim relief to provide immediate protection — with that application being heard today.

While the Defendants had offered undertakings pending trial, these were significantly diluted from the terms we had proposed and failed to provide adequate protection. No explanation was given as to why they were unwilling to agree to the terms we considered appropriate. In the absence of any agreement, we proceeded to have our application heard by the Court.

The Court was required to consider the American Cyanamid principles governing interim relief. As set out in that case, when exercising its discretion to grant an interim injunction, the Court considers:

1.      Whether there is a serious issue to be tried;
2.      Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the party seeking relief; and
3.      Where the balance of convenience lies.

Eleanor Guildford of 5 Essex Chambers, who represented our clients today and has been instrumental from the very outset of the proceedings, played a pivotal role in shaping the case. She prepared a thorough and persuasive skeleton argument addressing the American Cyanamid principles and advanced compelling submissions on each stage of the test. Her advocacy was central to the Court being satisfied that there was a serious issue to be tried, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction.

The Judge accordingly granted the interim injunction (in the terms we had sought) and ordered the Defendants to pay our clients’ costs occasioned by the application. If the Defendants breach any of the terms of the injunction, the Claimants may apply to the Court for a warrant for their arrest and the Court can issue the same if satisfied upon receipt of evidence under oath that there is reasonable grounds to believe a breach has occurred.

An excellent outcome for our clients — and a reminder of the importance of acting promptly to secure effective protection where harassment continues.