KB-2025-000703 - [2025] EWHC 2957 (KB)

The terms of the permanent injunction sought are similar to the terms of the interim injunction. They restrict Mr Baldwin’s ability to communicate with the claimants but also to continue making the allegations against them to others. It will clearly have an impact on his right to freedom of expression and I have therefore taken account of section 12 of the Human Rights Act and considered the necessity and proportionality of the injunctive relief.

Before me, Mr Baldwin pointed out that he has respected the court and the order of Jay J. But while he has respected the letter of the order, in the time since that order was made, he has made at least three applications to the High Court and Staines County Court that have been found to be totally without merit. And he has used the proceedings to expand the scope of his allegations to include baseless complaints against the legal representatives of the claimants in this claim.

It is clear that nothing short of injunctive relief will put a stop to the harassment by the defendant. I therefore find that a permanent injunction in the terms set out in the order is both necessary and proportionate to protect the claimants from further harassment.