I was interested to read the article 'Caught in the Act' about the historic action of a husband suing his wife's seducer for damages (see [2007] Gazette, 7 June, 17).


I have been looking carefully at the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which provides that 'a person must not pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another'.



Clearly, the Act does not have a definition of harassment, which makes the ambit incredibly wide. It merely states that it includes causing someone 'alarm or distress'.



In my view, entering into intimate relations with a person's spouse is a course of conduct that can amount to the harassment of another, and finding out your spouse is having an affair will certainly cause alarm or distress.



We have already seen the Act used rather ingeniously for employment matters in Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, a case of workplace bullying, where Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said 'the purpose of this statute is to protect victims from harassment, whatever form it takes, wherever it occurs and whatever its motivation'.



Section 3 of the Act provides that damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.



Some commentators believe that the starting point for awards in Protection from Harassment Act cases are the guidelines set down in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871.



I would much prefer to apply an inflationary increase to the award referred to in the article of £15,000 made in 1815 for 'criminal conversation', which, using the retail price index, converts to just over £1 million in today's prices.



Elish McKee, trainee solicitor, Underwoods, Hemel Hempstead