Optosafe Limited v Robertson: High Court grants final injunction in harassment and contract breach case

The High Court has granted a final injunction and awarded £25,000 in damages following a sustained campaign of harassment by a former company director against his previous employer and its officers.

John Robertson served as Managing Director of Optosafe Limited following its acquisition by Orbis Protect Limited in 2020. Upon his resignation in June 2021, Robertson entered into a settlement deed containing restrictive covenants, including a non-representation clause prohibiting him from representing himself as connected with the company and a non-disparagement clause preventing adverse comments about the company and its officers.

The harassment campaign

Between February 2023 and January 2024, Robertson conducted an extensive campaign primarily through LinkedIn and direct emails. He created derogatory caricatures of company officers, repeatedly made serious unfounded allegations including fraud and sexual offences, and published threatening messages. The defendant incorporated a company called "Sitex Orbis Fraud Investigations Limited" and referred to himself as "Mr Optosafe", both in breach of his contractual obligations.

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE found Robertson's conduct constituted a "persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct" meeting the threshold for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The judge rejected Robertson's contentions that his posts were merely published to an "echo chamber" or directed at "cartoon characters", noting the messages were clearly designed to come to the attention of those targeted.

Defences rejected

Robertson relied on two statutory defences: that his conduct was for preventing or detecting crime, and that it was reasonable in the circumstances. The court dismissed both defences. The judge found Robertson's predominant purpose was retaliation rather than crime prevention, and that his relentless campaign of vitriolic posts was wholly unreasonable regardless of whether some allegations had factual foundation.

The court noted that Robertson had made numerous reports to regulatory bodies including the Serious Fraud Office, Police Scotland and the Financial Conduct Authority, yet only minor breaches were identified by the Security Industry Authority.

Civil restraint order

Significantly, the court imposed a general civil restraint order for three years—the most restrictive form available. This followed seven applications being certified as totally without merit, including attempts to commit the claimant's CEO for contempt and applications for non-party disclosure.

The judge concluded that an extended civil restraint order would be inadequate given Robertson's pattern of finding alternative means to continue his campaign when certain avenues were blocked. The order requires Robertson to obtain judicial permission before issuing any claim or application in the High Court or county court.

Implications

The judgement demonstrates the courts' willingness to grant substantial protection against campaigns of harassment, particularly where conducted through social media platforms. The case illustrates that contractual non-disparagement clauses remain enforceable even where a party claims to be exposing alleged wrongdoing, provided appropriate whistleblowing protections are preserved.

The imposition of a general civil restraint order reflects the court's determination to prevent abuse of court processes where litigants persistently pursue unmeritorious claims as part of a broader campaign of harassment.

Copyright & permissions