In the High Court personal injury case of Sweeney –v- Balinteer Community School [2011] IEHC 131 the Court was scathing in its criticism of a Principal who had engaged a private investigator to carry out surveillance on the Plaintiff over a four day period. The Court, in the circumstances of this case, found these actions wholly inappropriate and found that this action by the Principal amounted to “a most serious harassment of the Plaintiff by him”.

In this case, the Plaintiff was followed during the day by a car with two occupants which the Court accepted made her feel “hunted, threatened and terrified”. Garda intervention ascertained that the Plaintiff was being followed by a private investigator personally employed by the Principal, without the knowledge of the Chairman or of the Board of Management of the School.

The Court relied on the fact that the Principal was aware of the Plaintiff’s long and completely uncharacteristic absences from work, which were medically certified on each occasion as being due to work related stress. The Court found that the Principal knew, or would have known had he chosen to give the matter thought, that this medical history rendered the Plaintiff very vulnerable to some form of mental illness such as a nervous breakdown but that the Principal nonetheless arranged for the Plaintiff to be stalked by a private investigator.

The Court found the injury to the Plaintiff arising from the stress of being placed under surveillance was reasonably foreseeable. The Court held that for the Principal to have acted in this manner, whether deliberately or with reckless indifference even though he was or ought to have been aware that mental harm to the Plaintiff might result in this action, amounted in the Court’s judgement to malicious targeting and harassment of the Plaintiff.

The issue of the surveillance carried out by the private investigator, was a very significant issue in this decision leading to an overall significant award in the Plaintiff’s favour, together with High Court costs and it is therefore clear that surveillance carried out in an unimpressive manner where there is knowledge of pre-existing sensitivity on the part of the Plaintiff could, in itself, constitute bullying and harassment such as to cause personal injury.