National firm Foot Anstey is seeking the committal of a litigant in person who the firm claims breached an injunction by sending further harassing communications to its staff.
An injunction against Dr Sean Stimson was made by consent in 2024. Its conditions stipulated that he could not phone, text, email or otherwise contact or communicate with the firm or its employees except through a designated email and post address or engage in any communication with the firm or its employees not relevant to his dispute over his aunt’s will.
The disputed will made provision for three animal charities and a hospice to recover proceeds from the estate. The court heard that one matter remains outstanding in relation to the dispute.
In a hearing before Mr Justice Griffiths, Foot Anstey sought the committal of Stimson for ‘serious’ breaches: a threatening email in June 2025 and a threatening letter in September 2025. Stimson denied that the email contained a threat and denied sending the letter.
Kate Wilson, for Foot Anstey, said: ‘The terms of the undertakings are clear. [Stimson] sent the email and sending it was a deliberate act. It is squarely within what actions were prohibited [in the injunction].’
Read more
She told the court the language in the communication was ‘threatening’. The email which included the line ‘my aunt’s last wishes were very clear and they will not be ignored and if necessary defended with force’ were ‘a threat of…violence whether it was going to be carried out or not’.
She added: ‘"They will not be ignored", that is important context. Context is everything. It is a threat of force and a clear breach of the undertakings that Doctor Stimson gave.’
Referring to the letter which started ‘Dear Foot Anstey wankers’, Wilson said: ‘It is abusive in its address and clearly contains a threat – “beat the shit out of you” also the use of the word “bitches”.'
Dr Stimson sent the letter, she said. 'Why would anyone else bother? That is why I say the inference is a compelling one, no reasonable mind would fail to draw it.’
Stimson told the court he was concerned with fulfilling his aunt’s last wishes and ‘ensuring her last will and testament were enacted’. On the letter, Stimson said someone had sent the correspondence ‘in my name’ adding if he had sent the letter ‘I actually have the balls to put my address on it and sign it and that is the gospel truth.'
Daniel Mullin, for Stimson, said: ‘Ambiguity both on the law and on the facts must be resolved in favour of the defendant.’
He told the court that the words ‘with force’ in the email referred only to legal force. ‘One reading of the phrase “with force” is a threat, but that is one interpretation,’ he said.
In written submissions, Mullin added: ‘The claimants cannot prove that the defendant sent the relevant letter without relying only on circumstantial evidence. The law is clear that in such a case, in order to meet the criminal standard of proof, the court must be satisfied that the facts are inconsistent with any conclusion other than that the contempt in question has been committed.
‘This is plainly not the case here, and therefore the contempt cannot be proven to the relevant standard.’
Judgment was reserved.
