BAL v KNZ 2026
BAL was in a relationship with Mr X between April 2000 and November 2004 and described being a victim of serious sexual violence during that relationship up to December 2017. She contended her child was the product of rape by Mr X. KNZ was Mr X's son. BAL contended that since 2020, Mr X and members of his family, including KNZ, subjected her to a campaign of harassment which significantly affected her life and health, supported by medical and safeguarding evidence. On 27 February 2023, BAL obtained a non-molestation order against Mr X under section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 in Middlesbrough Family Court, extended on several occasions to 27 February 2026. She contended Mr X breached this order on several occasions.
On 24 September 2024, BAL issued a claim in Middlesbrough County Court under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the Act) seeking an injunction against KNZ, as she had been advised she could not pursue an application under the Family Law Act 1996 against him as they had not been in a relationship. KNZ filed an Acknowledgment of Service indicating he intended to contest but filed no evidence in response. HHJ Robinson dismissed the claim on 2 December 2024, proceeding in KNZ's absence. The Judge found BAL credible and found three incidents proven but concluded they did not constitute a "course of conduct" under the Act. BAL appealed.
BAL's sole ground of appeal was that the Judge had failed to take into account the evidence she had provided about other incidents. In particular, she contended that the Judge had failed to consider her allegations about an incident on 3 April 2024. It was also arguable that the Judge had failed to take into account:
(i) the allegations BAL had made about an incident of 29 September 2021;
(ii) at least some of the social media messages relied upon by BAL; and
(iii) the issue of whether some of the incidents involving KNZ's family had been authorised, encouraged or instigated by him.
(ii) at least some of the social media messages relied upon by BAL; and
(iii) the issue of whether some of the incidents involving KNZ's family had been authorised, encouraged or instigated by him.
KNZ opposed these submissions.
Held
Appeal allowed.
BAL's appeal was allowed. A new trial was ordered under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 52.20(2)(c) of the alleged incidents. This trial should be consolidated with BAL's further application for an injunction.
The judgment was wrong for the purposes of CRP 52.21(3). The judge had not addressed some of the allegations that BAL had made. The Judge did not address the allegation regarding an incident on 3 March 2024, where she alleged KNZ had swerved his vehicle towards her in a deliberate attempt to scare and intimidate her, and that Mr X subsequently made a false complaint to the police. They did not address the allegation where she alleged KNZ's mother drove past her shouting, KNZ filmed her on his mobile phone, and he made a false complaint to the police that she had tried to run him over.
Both allegations were part of the pattern of harassment relied upon for the injunction application and were issues the Judge had to determine and/or material considerations he had to take into account.
Had the Judge determined either or both of these issues in BAL's favour, he might have formed a different view about the overall gravity of the case, leading to different consideration of the social media accounts allegation, a different conclusion on whether a "course of conduct" was made out, and potentially concluding the balance was tipped in favour of an injunction.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
