Travelers Insurance Company Ltd & Ors v Baldwin [2025] EWHC 2957 (KB) (13 November 2025)

Travelers Insurance Company Ltd & Ors v Baldwin [2025] EWHC 2957 (KB) (13 November 2025)

The defendant's conduct constituted a persistent and deliberate course of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defence failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not address the harassment allegations. Truth is not a defence to harassment, and the defendant's focus on alleged fraud was irrelevant. There was no real prospect of the defendant succeeding at trial, and a permanent injunction was necessary and proportionate to prevent further harassment.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2957 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Travelers Insurance Company Limited; Claimant/applicant: Owen White & Catlin LLP; Claimant/applicant: Mills & Reeve LLP; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Baldwin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Harassment Claim Under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Application for Strike Out of Defence, Summary Judgment, and Permanent Injunction
Outcome
Defence struck out; summary judgment granted for claimants; permanent injunction granted; defendant's applications dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permanent Injunction, Procedural Compliance, Self Represented Litigants
Civil Procedure Media and Communications Law Tort Law Harassment Summary Judgment Strike Out Permanent Injunction Procedural Compliance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Travelers Insurance Company Limited

Claimant/applicant

Owen White & Catlin LLP

Claimant/applicant

Mills & Reeve LLP

Claimant/applicant

Andrew Baldwin

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Harassment Claim Under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 / Application for Strike Out of Defence, Summary Judgment, and Permanent Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defence should be struck out for procedural non-compliance and lack of substance
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted for the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct constituted a persistent and deliberate course of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defence failed to comply with procedural requirements and did not address the harassment allegations. Truth is not a defence to harassment, and the defendant's focus on alleged fraud was irrelevant. There was no real prospect of the defendant succeeding at trial, and a permanent injunction was necessary and proportionate to prevent further harassment.

Court Disposition

Defence struck out; summary judgment granted for claimants; permanent injunction granted; defendant's applications dismissed as totally without merit.

Orders

  • Defence of 10 October 2025 struck out under CPR 3.4(2)
  • Summary judgment for claimants under CPR 24.3