(1) C’s claim under the tort of deceit succeeded in part. C was entitled to recover the $30,000 paid out due to first false representation of pregnancy (as was admitted by D) as well as the $100,000 paid due to her suggesting that C had caused her to become homeless, while she continued to live with her boyfriend. C was also entitled to recover the expense of travelling to New York for the hospital appointment on the basis of D’s false representations that she was pregnant on the second occasion. C was not entitled to recover the payments towards the Christie’s course. There was no evidence that the money did not go towards the course. As a matter of causation, false representations made about D’s other relationship cannot be tied in to this.
(2) D’s actions did amount to harassment. The critical question, whether D’s behaviour went beyond what would be reasonable and can be characterised as harassment, was a difficult one in the context of her 2016 pregnancy. If a woman becomes pregnant, as D did (in 2016 but not before), and believes C to be the father (which was less clear on the evidence) it is not necessarily unreasonable to pursue him in search of decisions and funding of those decisions. The Judge was not persuaded that such demands on C’s time were made on a knowingly false basis. However, there was a course of conduct distinguishable from this legitimate pursuit. The involvement of third parties and threats, particularly of wider publication and a false claim of assault, amount to this and form a pattern of harassing behaviour that falls outside what is ‘reasonable’.
(3) C’s claim in misuse of private information succeeded. There is no doubt that sexual activity, including adultery, gives rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. In applying the ‘ultimate balancing exercise’ the Judge considered whether the information disclosed was in the public domain or if there was a public interest in revealing the information, but had no evidence to suggest either.
(4) C was entitled to general damages. The Judge awarded £5,000 in respect of infringements of privacy (, , ,  and – of the Judgment) but nothing separately under harassment.
(5) C was entitled to an injunction founded upon harassment and privacy. The Judge concluded that D represented a continuing risk to him, and to his wife and family, of further harassment, intrusion and infringements of privacy. There was no reason to suggest the behaviour was out of character but was in fact part of a consistent pattern. The Judge believed that D’s behaviour meant she was likely to do what she could in the future to cause embarrassment and distress.