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

There were two applications before me from the defendant. By his application dated 27 October 2025 he asked:

“That the injunction orders dated 5 March 2025 and 2 May 2025 be stayed and discharged pursuant to CPR 3.1(7) and CPR 23.11, on the grounds that they were obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and material non-disclosure by the claimants’ solicitors, Mills & Reeve LLP, acting in concert with their clients and associated parties.”

Mr Baldwin addressed me in court in support of his written submissions. I refused the application to stay proceedings during the hearing because no real grounds were put forward to support the application. As I explained to Mr Baldwin, the claimants’ application was to decide whether the proceedings end here or go on to trial, staying proceedings at this stage would serve no purpose. If Mr Baldwin wanted the claim to go to trial, it was for him to respond effectively to the claimant’s application. As discussed above, he did not provide a coherent response.

In his submissions in support of his application for a separate hearing to consider evidence of fraud in the underlying dispute, Mr Baldwin gave no legal grounds for the application except his assertion that “fraud trumps all”. His submissions centred around his obsession with the underlying dispute and his conviction that his daughter did not sign the CCL or send emails in which she contracted the services of OWC. He is convinced that a fraud trial would put a stop to the harassment claim but this is unfounded.

His desire for a trial on evidence that the wet signature and emails are fraudulent is simply not justified in these proceedings. His allegations of fraud do not relate to any of the emails that form the basis for the claim in harassment or the allegations of the course of conduct set out in the particulars of claim. It is the evidence of harassment, not the evidence, or lack of it, of fraud, that formed the basis of the granting of a preliminary injunction. I therefore find both of the defendant’s applications to be totally without merit pursuant to CPR 23.12.

I note that this has been a pattern in both these proceedings and in the claim Mr Baldwin sought to bring before Staines County Court as an application for pre-action disclosure. Garnham J found the defendant’s application for an Order discharging the Order made by Jay J on 5 March 2025 to be totally without merit pursuant to CPR 23.12 as noted in his order dismissing the application dated 6 May 2025. Master Gidden found the defendant’s application dated 2 June 2025 to be totally without merit pursuant to CPR 23.12 when dismissing the application following consideration on the papers in the Order dated 26 June 2025. And Deputy District Judge Child declared the Application before him as wholly without merit in his order dated 23 June 2025 in Staines County Court.