A disgruntled litigant who made threatening calls to a law firm has been banned from making any direct further contact with the practice.
Mrs Justice Hill ruled in Foot Anstey v Sean Stimson that it was more likely than not that Sean Stimson had harassed at least two members of staff from national firm Foot Anstey.
Stimson is in a dispute involving his aunt’s will, which is being handled by the firm and which made provision for three animal charities and a hospice to recover the proceeds of her estate. He says there is a separate will and that she did not have capacity when she agreed to donate her estate to the charities, although he has yet to substantiate these assertions.
The court heard that at various ‘trigger points’ – when a dispute arose in 2022 or when payments were made earlier this year – Stimson threatened attendance and confrontation at the Foot Anstey offices and the client charities. In one such communication he threatened to organise a ‘flashmob’ at the address of the hospice.
It was also alleged that Stimson threatened the use of false and misleading domain names, and made threats to spread malware within the firm’s IT system.
In August, four calls in the space of 21 minutes were made to female employees of the firm. One person noted that the caller said he ‘wanted to fuck and rape me’, and all four calls involved abusive and sexually offensive language. The caller’s voice matched with voicemails previously left by Stimson and was identified by a staff member who had previously dealt with him.
Stimson, who did not attend the hearing, previously denied making the calls, saying he had been in court at the time. However further enquiries found he had left the building when they were made.
The firm and charities applied for an interim injunction preventing Stimson from attend their premises in person unless with prior agreement. It would also prevent him from making contact through phone, text or email except through a designated email and post address. He would also not be allowed to engage in any computer misuse or organise for other people to attend the firm or charities.
The judge said the seriousness threshold for imposing an injunction was met and that she accepted the evidence of those individuals who were shocked or distressed by calls from Stimson.
The injunction was not a blanket ban on all communications, and Stimson will be able to make appropriate reports to regulators if he sees fit.
The judge added: ‘The applicants are rightly concerned about the welfare of their staff and that without apprehending the respondent from certain sorts of behaviour there is a very realistic risk that this sort of behaviour will continue. I accept that submission.’
