Background
The claimant, a District Judge in the Magistrates’ Court, is the defendant’s brother-in-law. When the defendant’s mother died in December 2022, she left a will appointing the claimant and his wife as executors. The defendant challenged the will’s validity, alleging fraud and undue influence. In November 2023, the Chancery Division upheld the will and dismissed his allegations.
Following this defeat, the defendant embarked on a campaign of harassment against the claimant. He sent numerous emails to various recipients—including judges, HMCTS leadership, the Chief Magistrate’s Office, the Attorney General, MPs, and police—making baseless allegations that the claimant had committed fraud, theft, forgery, money laundering, and abused his judicial office. The allegations concerned matters (the defendant’s bankruptcy, estate administration) to which the claimant had no involvement whatsoever.
On 16 February 2024, Steyn J granted an interim injunction prohibiting the defendant from sending further such communications. On 24 July 2024, the court made a final injunction (the “Eardley Injunction”). The defendant breached both injunctions repeatedly. On 12 September 2024, the court found him in contempt on 17 occasions. At sentencing on 4 November 2024, the court imposed a suspended committal order: 4 months in prison, suspended for 2 years on condition of compliance with the Eardley Injunction.
The Court’s Holding
On 5 June 2025, the claimant applied to activate the suspended committal order, alleging at least 25 further breaches of the Eardley Injunction between December 2024 and May 2025. By 1 July 2026, the parties had reached a settlement. Justice Linden approved the resulting Consent Order, which resolved the application. This judgment sets out the background and explains why the order was approved. The judgment emphasizes that the defendant’s conduct remained contumacious and incoherent throughout, and that despite multiple warnings and opportunities to comply, he persisted in breaching the injunctions.
The court’s earlier decisions were upheld on appeal. In March 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the suspended committal order and certified it as totally without merit. The Court of Appeal emphasized that compliance with injunctive orders is essential to maintain public confidence in the civil justice system and to protect the claimant from ongoing harassment.
Key Takeaways
- Courts will actively enforce injunctions against harassment by pursuing contempt proceedings and will impose custodial sentences for deliberate breaches, including suspended sentences that can be activated if conditions are not met.
- An applicant need not wait until all breaches have occurred to seek activation; applications can be made once a pattern of breach is established, and multiple breaches can be treated as aggravating the contempt.
- Unrepresented litigants do not escape the consequences of contempt; courts will proceed fairly but will not indefinitely postpone proceedings where an applicant refuses legal representation or fails to provide timely medical evidence.
- False allegations against judicial officers, particularly when circulated deliberately to damage professional reputation, constitute harassment and may form the basis for both injunctions and contempt findings.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the court’s multi-layered approach to protecting judicial officers and court users from harassment via abuse of process. Where a litigant persists in making baseless allegations after losing on the merits, courts have strong tools: restraining orders, findings of contempt, and custodial sanctions (suspended or immediate). The judgment also shows the court’s willingness to give respondents multiple chances—adjourning for legal representation, suspending sentences conditionally—while making clear that repeated breaches will result in activation and imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal’s endorsement of the suspended sentence, despite acknowledging the defendant’s health problems, signals that civil contempt is taken seriously when an injunction protecting a public official from harassment is knowingly flouted. The case is a reminder that litigants pursuing legitimate disputes must not cross into harassment, and that the courts will intervene promptly and decisively to stop conduct that amounts to “conscious decision to cause distress” through false and defamatory allegations.