A litigant in person faces prison for contempt after a High Court found he had breached an injunction by sending harassing communications to staff at national firm Foot Anstey.
The firm applied to commit Dr Sean Stimson, who was involved in a dispute over his aunt's will, for contempt of court. An injunction was made by consent in 2024 with conditions that Stimson could not phone, text, email or otherwise contact or communicate with the firm or its employees except through a designated email and post address. It also barred communication with the firm or its employees not relevant to his dispute.
Foot Anstey sought the committal of Stimson over what it alleged were breaches of the injunction – a threatening email in June 2025 and a threatening letter in September 2025. Stimson denied that the email contained a threat and denied writing or sending the letter.
In Foot Anstey LLP & Anor v Dr Sean Stimson Mr Justice Griffiths, found Stimson was in contempt of court over both the letter and the email. He said the letter was abusive and threatening and a breach of the undertakings, adding: ‘The evidence that Dr Stimson wrote the letter and caused it to be sent is overwhelming. It includes but is not limited to the direct evidence of the signature, and the content of the letter, which is in the first person and from Dr Stimson about his aunt.
‘Even if all the evidence is properly to be treated as circumstantial, however (including that evidence), a reasonable mind can only conclude, as I conclude, that there is no realistic possibility that anyone other than Dr Stimson wrote the letter and caused it to be sent. I find as a fact to the criminal standard of proof that he did both.’
Read more
Referring to the email, the judge found it was a ‘bona fide communication’ relating to the will, but it was threatening and in contempt of court.
He said: ‘The email is not, when read as a whole, threatening only due process or lawful force. The sentence “My aunt's last wishes were very clear, and they will not be ignored and if necessary defended with force” can only be read as a threat of force, that is physical force, and not as a threat to pursue legal proceedings forcefully. The threat of force was a clear and unambiguous breach of para 1.4 of the undertakings.’
A hearing to consider penalty following the judge’s finding is listed for next week.
