In Titan Wealth Holdings Ltd v Okunola [2024] EWHC 2641 (KB), the High Court found that it had no "sound jurisdictional basis" for ordering injunctive relief to protect the Claimants' legal team from abuse by the Defendant, who was acting as a litigant in person.

Background...

The Claimants had applied for an order, pursuant to the Court's general case management powers, restraining the Defendant from abusing and harassing their legal team.

The application became necessary as a result of the Defendant, on various occasions over a three month period, subjecting the Claimants’ legal team to communications which were described by the Judge as “gratuitously distressing… demeaning… threatening and/or sexually abusive.” The Judge went on to find that the Defendant’s conduct had impacted on the legal team’s ability to fulfil its duties to its clients, and to conduct the proceedings properly and in accordance with the overriding objective. 

Despite that, the Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to make the order sought. That was because, in the absence of any anticipated cause of action between the legal team and the Defendant, the Court could not reach a view on whether there was a “serious question to be tried”, as required for the grant of injunctive relief under the American Cyanamid test. If the legal team wanted the protection of an injunction, the Court found, it would need to start proceedings of its own. 

Why we need help…

The decision suggests that even where lawyers are subjected to serious abuse that would, in its own right, be sufficient to found a claim for harassment, the Court nevertheless lacks jurisdiction to restrain that conduct within the framework of existing proceedings. The only recourse available to lawyers who are subjected to such abuse would therefore be either to seek to commence criminal proceedings (to the extent the conduct complained of is criminal), or to commence their own civil proceedings, and fund and pursue them at their own cost and in their own time.

It also follows concerns raised by the Law Society, in a letter to the Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor, and Home Secretary, and consequently in a survey of solicitors, about the need for threats against the legal profession to be taken seriously. Whilst those concerns arose as a result of threats made against lawyers during the anti-immigration riots which took place in the summer of 2024, the underlying principle remains the same: namely, that lawyers should not be at risk of criticisms, threats, or attacks for doing their job, and that allowing such abuse to take place constitutes a threat to the proper administration of justice and the rule of law.

Most recently, the critical need for measures to be taken for the protection of lawyers has culminated in the UK becoming a signatory to the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, the first international treaty focusing on the safety of lawyers. Whilst the Convention underscores the importance of the protection of lawyers from harassment, threats and interference with their professional duties (and the commitments of State Parties to the Convention, including the UK, to guarantee that protection), insofar as the High Court’s decision is followed in future, lawyers in England and Wales may nevertheless be left with no real recourse to prevent, and protect themselves against, such conduct.   

How you can help…

The Claimants have permission to appeal the High Court’s decision, with that appeal to be heard on 7 October 2025. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP is acting pro bono alongside Fountain Court, but we are seeking contributions from the wider community towards counsel fees, filing fees, and various other disbursements.

Our target is £15,000. Any surplus will be donated to Access to Justice.