Travelers Insurance Company Limited & Ors v Andrew Baldwin

Travelers Insurance Company Limited & Ors v Andrew Baldwin

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. The defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim, and summary judgment and a permanent injunction were necessary and proportionate to prevent further harassment.

Parties
Claimant: Travelers Insurance Company Limited; Claimant: Owen White & Catlin LLP; Claimant: Mills & Reeve LLP; Defendant: Andrew Baldwin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (harassment) / Application for Strike Out of Defence, Summary Judgment, and Permanent Injunction
Outcome
Defence struck out; summary judgment granted for claimants; permanent injunction granted against defendant; defendant's applications dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permanent Injunction, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Tort Law Media and Communications Law Harassment Summary Judgment Strike Out Permanent Injunction Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Travelers Insurance Company Limited

Claimant

Owen White & Catlin LLP

Claimant

Mills & Reeve LLP

Claimant

Andrew Baldwin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (harassment) / 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 and substantive non-compliance
  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. The defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim, and summary judgment and a permanent injunction were necessary and proportionate to prevent further harassment.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Defence struck out under CPR 3.4(2)
  • Summary judgment for claimants under CPR 24.3