Thorne & Anor v Protheroe-Beynon [2026] EWHC 1042 (KB) (06 May 2026)

Thorne & Anor v Protheroe-Beynon [2026] EWHC 1042 (KB) (06 May 2026)

The defendant's conduct, including repeated threatening communications and public allegations of professional misconduct, is more likely than not to be found to amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The threshold test for interim injunctive relief under s12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 is satisfied. The balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages favour continuation of the injunction. The defendant's ECHR Article 10 rights do not outweigh the claimants' rights to be free from harassment. Statements made in inter partes correspondence are immune from suit unless wholly extraneous to proceedings. The injunction is proportionate and limited to prevent further...

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1042 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Kayleigh Thorne; Claimant: Adele Nicola Rainsford; Defendant: David Protheroe-Beynon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (harassment) / Return Date Hearing; Extension of Interim Relief Pending Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction continued until trial or further order
Legal Topics
Harassment, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Professional Misconduct, Reporting Restrictions
Civil Procedure Media Law Family Law Human Rights Harassment Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Professional Misconduct +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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kayleigh Thorne

Claimant

Adele Nicola Rainsford

Claimant

David Protheroe-Beynon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (harassment) / Return Date Hearing; Extension of Interim Relief Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounts to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether interim injunctive relief should be continued pending trial
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's ECHR Article 10 rights outweigh the claimants' rights to be free from harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct, including repeated threatening communications and public allegations of professional misconduct, is more likely than not to be found to amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The threshold test for interim injunctive relief under s12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 is satisfied. The balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages favour continuation of the injunction. The defendant's ECHR Article 10 rights do not outweigh the claimants' rights to be free from harassment. Statements made in inter partes correspondence are immune from suit unless wholly extraneous to proceedings. The injunction is proportionate and limited to prevent further...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued until trial or further order

Orders

  • Defendant prohibited from contacting claimants directly or indirectly except via designated practice manager for Family Proceedings
  • Defendant prohibited from publishing further allegations of professional misconduct or dishonesty about claimants via social media or other public channels