Background
Brendan Fleming, a prominent Birmingham solicitor, died unexpectedly on 31 December 2023, leaving a will that appointed his accountant Richard Wood and a colleague Rebecca Ward as executors. His partner Sophie Fleming — with whom he had six children — received only a right to occupy Turkish property under the will, with the residue held on trust for the children. Ms Fleming contested the will and the executors’ authority on multiple grounds, including claims that Mr Fleming had been domiciled in Turkey, that the will was invalid, and that the executors and their associates had conspired to defraud her and her children of control of the deceased’s law firm, Brendan Fleming Ltd.
From early 2024, Ms Fleming engaged in persistent abusive and defamatory communications directed at the executors and law firm staff, and posted similar content on social media. HHJ Tindal, sitting as a High Court judge in Birmingham, granted interim and then continuing injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 — first in favour of the executors (the Executors’ Order, July 2024) and later in favour of court-appointed interim administrators Fiona Lawrence and Michele Rose (the Administrators’ Order, November 2025). Ms Fleming breached both orders repeatedly. She was found liable for harassment after a trial in November 2024 and was found to have committed 23 breaches of the Executors’ Order and four breaches of the Administrators’ Order.
On 26 January 2026 HHJ Tindal imposed suspended sentences of imprisonment: 28 days (suspended for two years) for the breaches of the Executors’ Order and a concurrent 7 days (suspended for one year) for the breaches of the Administrators’ Order. Ms Fleming, by then residing abroad at an undisclosed location, appealed the Committal Order as of right, initially with legal aid representation. Her solicitors and counsel later withdrew on grounds of professional embarrassment, and she appeared at the Court of Appeal hearing by video link in person.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Arnold, with Lady Justice Asplin agreeing) dismissed the appeal in its entirety and certified it as totally without merit. The court held that Ms Fleming’s appeal against the sentences for breaching the Executors’ Order was necessarily limited to sanction, yet none of her seven grounds of appeal actually challenged the sanction — and in any event the suspended 28-day term was well within the range reasonably available to the judge. Her overarching contention that all High Court orders in the proceedings were ultra vires for want of jurisdiction was rejected as untenable: she had either not appealed or been refused permission to appeal the underlying orders, the harassment injunctions were made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 independently of any disputed probate or company jurisdiction, and even an order that were ultra vires must be obeyed unless set aside.
On the Administrators’ committal (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Committal Order), the court addressed a procedural objection raised by Ms Fleming’s former counsel: the initial application had mistakenly used Form N244 rather than the prescribed Form N600, and the compliant N600 application was served only one clear working day before the hearing. The court upheld HHJ Tindal’s conclusion that no procedural unfairness had resulted. Ms Fleming had known of the application since at least 15 January 2026, was already aware of her rights from earlier proceedings, could have sought an adjournment but did not, and had deliberately chosen not to attend because she wished to be present at a Turkish court hearing on 6 February 2026 rather than risk imprisonment.
The court declined to impose a civil restraint order of its own motion because Ms Fleming had not been forewarned of that possibility, and instead indicated that any such application should be made to the High Court on notice. In a postscript, Lord Justice Arnold echoed Jackson LJ’s observations in Thursfield v Thursfield [2013] EWCA Civ 840 about the anomaly that a contemnor may flout court orders, evade a custodial sentence by remaining abroad, and yet invoke a right of appeal without permission — and called for legislative reform of this aspect of the law, noting that thirteen years had passed since those concerns were first articulated.
Key Takeaways
- A party who has not appealed — or has been refused permission to appeal — the underlying injunctions cannot challenge their lawfulness on an appeal against committal for breach of those orders.
- Harassment injunctions granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 stand on their own jurisdictional footing, independent of any disputed domicile or estate-administration jurisdiction.
- Procedural defects in a committal application (here, use of the wrong form and late re-service of the corrected notice) will not render the hearing unfair where the respondent had ample prior notice, was already aware of their rights, and made a deliberate informed choice not to attend or seek an adjournment.
- Even an order that may be ultra vires must be complied with unless and until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- The court signalled, in strong terms, that the rule entitling contemnors to appeal without permission while evading sentence abroad is in need of statutory reform.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the robustness of harassment injunctions in estate and probate disputes, confirming that beneficiaries and third parties who engage in sustained campaigns of abuse against executors and administrators face real contempt consequences regardless of collateral challenges to the court’s jurisdiction. The procedural guidance on Form N600 requirements — and the circumstances in which technical defects will not vitiate a committal hearing — will be of practical importance to practitioners bringing or defending contempt applications.
The court’s postscript adds institutional weight to a growing judicial chorus calling on Parliament to close the loophole that allows contemnors based overseas to use the Court of Appeal as a free tool of delay while suffering no consequence for evading their sentences. The judgment signals that this reform pressure is unlikely to diminish.