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

This is my judgment on an application by the claimants dated 31 July 2025. The application sought an order striking out the defence, entering judgment for the claimant’s on their claims against the defendant and granting summary judgment along with a permanent injunction against the defendant in a claim for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977 (PHA 1977). The claimants seek injunctive relief against the defendant pursuant to ss. 1(1A) and 3A of the PHA 1997.

There are three claimants in these proceedings. The first claimant (‘Travelers’) is a private limited company which provides professional indemnity insurance to the second claimant (‘OWC’), a solicitors’ firm which previously acted for the defendant’s daughter in Employment Tribunal proceedings. The third claimant (‘Mills & Reeve’) is a solicitors’ firm which has been instructed by Travelers under a dual retainer with OWC since March 2024 in relation to the defendant’s conduct towards Travelers and OWC. The claimants were represented before me by Adam Speker KC and Luke Browne.

The defendant is a litigant in person and the father of Catherine Baldwin, a former client of OWC. He represented himself before me and was accompanied by his wife.This judgment also addresses two applications made by the defendant, the first to stay the proceedings and the second to either discharge the proceedings or to order a trial by a different judge on what the defendant says is evidence of fraud or cover up of fraud by the claimants.

While the claim itself relates to a course of conduct by the defendant dating from 10 February 2025, it is important to set out a brief background as described in the particulars of claim to understand the context and true nature of the conduct complained of.

The defendant’s daughter, Catherine Baldwin, was a client of OWC between 2019 and January 2021. OWC represented her in relation to two separate matters, the latest being a case she brought in the Employment Tribunal. It seems Mr Baldwin provided financial support for this.

Mr Baldwin made a complaint to OWC about its services provided and the level of fees charged to his daughter in January 2021. Unhappy with its response, he then complained to the Legal Ombudsman in November 2022. This is what I shall refer to as “the underlying dispute”. Central to Mr Baldwin’s complaint is his belief that his daughter never signed the Client Care Letter (“CCL”) engaging the services of OWC and that the documentation, including email exchanges about her engagement of OWC in that case, is forged and fraudulent.

The complaint to the Legal Ombudsman was resolved by agreed outcome whereby OWC made a single payment of £859.64 to the defendant and Ms Baldwin. This was intended to conclude any dispute over fees which, as Mr Speker conceded before me, had been high.

Unfortunately Mr Baldwin was not satisfied with this and, in March 2023, he visited OWC’s office in Feltham unannounced. He refused to leave and OWC says he was acting in a threatening manner which caused distress to its employees so that it had to call the police. The defendant finally left when requested by the police. OWC then wrote to the defendant informing him that he had caused distress to employees and that, if he wished to discuss things in person or view papers, he should have requested an appointment in the appropriate way.

Mr Baldwin then went on to complain about OWC to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”). Following an initial response from the SRA and a follow up complaint from Mr Baldwin, the SRA informed OWC in September 2023 that the file on the matter would remain closed and no further action would be taken.

Later that month, Mr Baldwin made a Subject Access Request to OWC and they provided an electronic bundle of documents in response which included a copy of the CCL apparently signed by Catherine Baldwin.

In response to the ongoing underlying dispute, Travelers, as OWC’s insurer, instructed Mills & Reeve to look into the defendant’s various allegations and complaints. In May 2024, Mills & Reeve sent a detailed response on behalf of the First and Second claimants addressing the allegations and complaints in detail but ultimately rejecting the allegations of fraud and denying the complaints and losses detailed by the defendant in their entirety. It also rejected the escalating quantum of the defendant’s threatened claim stating that the sums of approximately £1 million he claimed “appear to be simply fabricated figures aimed at frightening or blackmailing our client into paying you/your daughter damages.”

Between 15 March 2024 and 28 February 2025, when Mills & Reeve became involved, it wrote to Mr Baldwin on 10 different occasions asking him to direct all correspondence regarding this matter to two designated employees of Mills & Reeve instead of to OWC or any other party. But again, in May 2024, Mr Baldwin visited OWC’s offices in Shepperton and Feltham unannounced demanding that their employees on reception accept receipt of hard copy documents. And in July 2024 he handed out leaflets to passersby outside their office in Shepperton until OWC called the police though he left the area before the police attended.

From 12 February 2024, Mr Baldwin started to demand monies from the claimants in return for stopping his conduct and refraining from bringing proceedings against OWC for the underlying dispute. The amounts have increased over time from £107,656.34 in February 2024 to £1,800,000 in January 2025. No basis for the figures has ever been provided by the defendant.

Mr Baldwin continued to email the claimants with his complaints and allegations throughout 2024. In January 2025, Travelers arranged for all emails sent to it by Mr Baldwin to be automatically directed to its Vice-President of Claims in Europe and selected other individuals. On 2 February 2025, as a result, Mr Baldwin emailed individuals employed by or affiliated with the claimants stating “It seems that some email boxes have been blocked, this is not a problem as I will now add names and email addresses to my emails so that the news organisations can contact you directly for any questions...” This is when the conduct started to escalate further leading to the course of actions set out in the Particulars of Claim.

On 20 February 2025 Mills & Reeve wrote to the defendant warning him that, unless he provided undertakings to cease the escalating conduct, the claimants would seek interim and permanent injunctive relief under PHA 1997. Mr Baldwin’s response, in two emails the next day, refused to provide undertakings, characterised the correspondence as an attempt to “silence” him and threatened to take further action against the claimants if they did not settle the matter or provide the evidence requested by him.

On 26 February 2025, the claimants filed and served an application notice seeking an interim injunction against the defendant under the PHA 1997. In the days following that, Mr Baldwin emailed the claimants on several occasions with more threats of reporting to regulators and legal proceedings in response to what he described as “a blatant attempt to silence allegations of serious fraud”.

The Particulars of Claim set out a course of conduct between 10 February 2025 and 5 March 2025 (the date of the injunction) which the claimants say amounts to harassment. This includes:

Following a hearing in person, Jay J made an Order granting an interim injunction on 5 March 2025. Mr Baldwin applied to discharge that order but following a hearing, Garnham J dismissed the application as totally without merit in an order dated 6 May 2025. Two applications by the defendant were subsequently considered on the papers, the first dismissed as totally without merit by Master Gidden on 26 June 2025 and the second put off by order of Steyn J on 19 August 2025 to be considered at the hearing before me. Mr Baldwin appealed the orders of Jay J and Garnham J but the Appeal was refused by Lewison LJ on 27^th October 2025 as it had no real prospect of success.

The claimants issued this application for strike out of the defence or summary judgment and a permanent injunction on 31 July 2025. The interim injunction ordered on 5 March 2025 remained in effect at the time of the hearing before me on 6 November 2025.

The claim is one of harassment. Section (1A) of the PHA 1977 provides that: