Cases

Cray v Hancock & Another

Comment

This case is an interesting for its treatment of harassment and quantum. Harassment conducted anonymously - particularly where it is conducted (as in this case) via e-mail and the Internet - is perhaps the most difficult to tackle. In this case a 2-year campaign was found by the Court to have been conducted by the First Defendant, Mr Hancock. His answer was to have denied involvement in the anonymous acts. As such, the balance and standard of proof were critical in the case. The civil standard - balance of probabilities - required the Court to be satisfied that it was more likely than not the First Defendant was responsible for the anonymous acts complained of. In assessing the evidence the Court adopted the approach recommended in In re H [1996] AC 563, 586 and in Phipson on Evidence; that the Court should assess two hypotheses advanced to explain the relevant acts to ascertain which was the more credible.

Areas of work

Defamation
Harassment
Injunctive Relief
Professional Negligence

Also