Scotland · Civil harassment
LJBD / CASE / 005 · Checked 1 August 2026
[2011] CSIH 33
The proposition below is deliberately narrower than a general summary. Open the linked decision, read the paragraphs in context and check whether later or higher authority changes the point.
Issue before the court
At the pleading stage, could an alleged incident in 2007 form part of the same course of workplace-related conduct as incidents in 2004 and 2005, and what questions must a section 8 harassment claim answer?
Precise proposition
A section 8 claim must support three conclusions: a course of conduct, harassment, and either intention or circumstances in which a reasonable person would regard the conduct as harassment. Evidence is considered in the round. It is the course as a whole that must amount to harassment, so each individual incident need not independently do so. Intention or the reasonable-person limb may be inferred from the evidence.
This wording is this site's synthesis of the identified reasons. It is not presented as a quotation unless the judgment itself is opened and the exact words are checked.
Paragraph guide
Paragraph numbers are navigation aids. Read the surrounding facts, submissions and disposal before extracting a proposition.
The pleaded workplace history, the later street incident, the Lord Ordinary's dismissal and the reclaiming motion.
The Scottish provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the associated limitation provision.
The three questions a relevant section 8 claim must be capable of answering positively.
A course requires conduct on at least two occasions, and the evidence should be considered in the round rather than forced into a criminal-law corroboration model.
The course as a whole must amount to harassment. Each incident need not independently have that quality.
Intention or the objective reasonable-person limb may be inferred from the evidence.
The dismissal was recalled and proof before answer was allowed with all pleas standing.
Result
The Inner House recalled the Lord Ordinary's dismissal and allowed a proof before answer, leaving all pleas standing. It did not find that harassment had occurred or award damages.
Selected later treatment
This is a recorded check, not a complete commercial citator. Each entry identifies the treatment actually found and the date of the overall note check.
[2012] CSOH 13 · [47], [50] to [54]
The Lord Ordinary used Marinello when holding that allegedly different methods of conduct and intertwined limitation questions required evidence rather than dismissal at debate.
Open later authority[2013] CSIH 67 · [17], [37], [41] to [43]
The Inner House quoted and explained Marinello's whole-course analysis. It accepted that assaults may form part of a harassing course, while stressing that a single assault is not harassment and that characterising acts as a course does not itself establish causation or vicarious liability.
Open later authority[2026] CSOH 54 · [60], [94] to [95], [108]
After proof, Lord Young applied the whole-course principle when treating proved assaults, abusive speech and some controlling conduct from 1997 to 2018 as one course, while excluding ordinary family criticism, and found harassment under section 8.
Open later authority[2026] CSIH 28 · [23], [27] to [31], [63]
The Inner House treated Marinello as the governing whole-course approach, applied it in rejecting a fair-notice challenge concerning evidence in a long-running harassment claim, and refused the reclaiming motion.
Open later authorityScope of check: Open-source treatment check completed on 1 August 2026. Marinello has been applied or explained in Moulds v Reid [2012] CSOH 13, Vaickuviene v J Sainsbury plc [2013] CSIH 67, X v Y [2026] CSOH 54 and X v Y [2026] CSIH 28. No adverse treatment of the whole-course holding was located; this is not a complete subscription citator.
Source register
Checked 1 August 2026. A broken link does not change the decision, but it does weaken this page as a public reading aid and should be reported for correction.