BAL v KNZ: High Court allows harassment appeal and orders retrial over overlooked allegations

In a judgement handed down on 18 February 2026, Mrs Justice Hill allowed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim and injunction application under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA), finding that the judge below had failed to address material allegations in his judgement.

The appellant had been in a relationship with a man referred to as Mr X between 2000 and 2004, during which she alleges she suffered serious sexual violence. The respondent is Mr X's son. From 2020, the appellant contended that Mr X and members of his family — including the respondent — subjected her to a sustained campaign of harassment causing significant harm to her health and daily life.

In September 2024, the appellant issued a claim in Middlesbrough County Court seeking a harassment injunction against the respondent. As she had not been in a relationship with the respondent, the Family Law Act 1996 was unavailable to her, making the PHA the appropriate route.

The first instance decision

HHJ Robinson heard the claim in December 2024. Despite finding the appellant to be a credible witness, he identified only three proven incidents: the respondent shouting an abusive slur from a car window in September 2021; threats made approximately one to two years before the hearing; and a gesture made from a white van outside a mosque in February 2024. He concluded these were too temporally dispersed and insufficiently connected to constitute a "course of conduct" under section 1(1) of the PHA. He further held that even if wrong on that point, the passage of time since the last incident militated against granting injunctive relief.

The appeal

Permission to appeal was granted by Dias J following an oral hearing in May 2025. The sole ground advanced by the appellant was that the judge had failed to consider allegations of two further incidents. Dias J considered it arguable that the judge had also failed to address certain social media evidence and the question of whether the respondent had authorised or instigated harassment by family members.

On the fresh evidence applications, Mrs Justice Hill declined to admit either a June 2025 witness statement or documents relating to events in late 2025. The former largely replicated evidence already before the lower court, failing the first Ladd v Marshall criterion, while neither application fell within the established categories permitting admission of post-hearing evidence on appeal.

On the substantive appeal, the court found that the judgement below was wrong within the meaning of CPR 52.21(3). The judge had not addressed the appellant's allegation that on 3 March 2024 the respondent deliberately swerved his vehicle towards her, nor a separate incident on 29 September 2021 involving filming and a false police complaint. Both allegations were material: they formed part of the alleged pattern of harassment, involved the respondent acting in concert with family members, and — had either been determined in the appellant's favour — might have altered the court's conclusions on the "course of conduct" test and the appropriateness of injunctive relief.

The order of HHJ Robinson was set aside, save that his factual findings regarding the three proven incidents were preserved. A retrial was ordered in respect of the two unaddressed allegations, to be consolidated with the appellant's outstanding injunction application currently before Middlesbrough County Court.

Copyright & permissions