Litigant found in contempt jailed for month over 'misguided campaign' against Foot Anstey

A litigant in dispute with national firm Foot Anstey over his aunt’s will has been sentenced to a month in prison after being found in contempt of court.

Dr Sean Stimson, who did not appear at the penalty hearing before Mr Justice Griffiths today, was found in contempt earlier this month after he was found in breach of an injunction by sending harassing communications to Foot Anstey staff.

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 over his aunt’s will.

Stimson was found to have breached the injunction by sending a threatening email in June 2025 and a threatening letter in September 2025. Stimson had denied that the email contained a threat and denied writing or sending the letter.

In a half day hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice, the judge dismissed an application for adjournment of the sentencing finding it would not prejudice Stimson who was represented by counsel Daniel Mullin. Stimson has requested the adjournment of sentencing on medical grounds.

The court heard there had been ‘no repeat’ of further contact by Stimson since contempt proceedings had started.

Mullin, for Stimson, asked the court for his client to be ‘given one last chance’. He added that Kate Wilson, counsel for Foot Anstey 'accepted there was harm in that security needed to be upped but we have not had evidence of individual harm on individuals at the receiving end of Dr Stimson’s contempt'.

Giving an ex-tempore judgment, Mr Justice Griffiths noted that Foot Anstey had ‘put in place increased security measures at all its offices’ which was a ‘reasonable response’ to Stimson’s correspondence – the email and the letter, which was the ‘worse’ of the two breaches.

The judge noted the letter in which Stimson had said: 'the jails are full so I will just keep coming for you until you comply or are permanently hospitalised' had shown an awareness of the punishment he could face and that he ‘would get away with it because "the jails are full'".

The judge ‘recognise[d] [Stimson] was very heavily invested in his misguided campaign against the administration of his aunt’s estate in accordance with the will which has now been proved’ but Stimson ‘accepted no responsibility and expressed no remorse’ which was ‘not an aggravating feature but deprives him of mitigation’.

‘The seriousness and harm represented particularly by the letter’ mean a ‘custodial sentence is inevitable,’ the judge said, both to ‘punish the breaches of the undertaking and deter further breaches’.

Sentencing Stimson to 28 days imprisonment, the judge said ‘the seriousness of the offence…does mean the appropriate punishment is immediate custody’.

Stimson will be required to serve only half of his sentence. He was also ordered to pay £35,000 costs.

The court heard Stimson had indicated he intended to appeal the findings of contempt, which the judge said, after hearing a brief outline of possible grounds, had no prospect of success.