# Protection from Harassment Act 1997

> **Key takeaway:** PfHA 1997 s.1: course of conduct (≥2) amounting to harassment, knew/ought to know. Damages + injunction (s.3). Defences s.1(3). Vicarious liability possible (Majrowski). Coordinate with EqA/FLA/criminal options.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Commercial
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/Commercial/protection-from-harassment
- **Keywords:** harassment, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, course of conduct, injunction, Majrowski, stalking, section 3, alarm and distress

## What is this about?

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 creates civil and criminal liability for harassment courses of conduct. It is used in stalking, neighbour, workplace, and protest contexts, alongside other civil torts and family protective orders.

## What is the core rule?

A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and which they know or ought to know amounts to harassment (s.1). A course of conduct generally involves conduct on at least two occasions (s.7). Harassment includes alarming or causing distress. Civil remedies include damages and injunctions (s.3); breach of an injunction is a criminal offence. Defences include prevention/detection of crime and reasonable conduct in the particular circumstances (s.1(3)).

## What are the elements or test?

1. Course of conduct (usually ≥2 occasions)?
2. Amounts to harassment (alarm/distress)?
3. Knew or ought to have known?
4. Defence under s.1(3)?
5. Civil injunction/damages and/or criminal complaint?

## Which authorities matter?

- **Protection from Harassment Act 1997, ss.1–7** — Core prohibition, remedies, and definitions.
- **Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2007] 1 AC 224** — House of Lords: employers can be vicariously liable for harassment by employees in the course of employment.
- **Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233** — Court of Appeal on harassment via publications — high threshold in media contexts.

## How does this apply in practice?

Workplace cases interact with EqA harassment. Domestic abuse may engage FLA orders (see family notes) and criminal stalking offences (Protection of Freedoms Act additions). Free speech/protest cases need careful s.1(3) and proportionality analysis.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Treating a single incident as a course of conduct
- Underestimating the threshold for media/publication harassment
- Overlapping injunction regimes without coordination
- Ignoring vicarious liability for employers (Majrowski)

## When would a practitioner use this?

Civil injunctions against stalkers/neighbours; employment harassment claims framing.

## Quick reference

PfHA 1997 s.1: course of conduct (≥2) amounting to harassment, knew/ought to know. Damages + injunction (s.3). Defences s.1(3). Vicarious liability possible (Majrowski). Coordinate with EqA/FLA/criminal options.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*