Kayleigh Thorne & Anor v David Protheroe-Beynon

Kayleigh Thorne & Anor v David Protheroe-Beynon

The threshold for an interim injunction under s12(3) HRA 1998 is met. The Defendant's conduct, including repeated threatening and offensive communications and public allegations, is more likely than not to be found at trial to amount to harassment and not reasonable. The balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages favour continuation of the injunction. The Defendant's Article 10 rights are not disproportionately infringed as the publications are not journalistic in nature and lack evidential basis. The injunction is proportionate and necessary to protect the Claimants from further harassment.

Parties
Claimant: Kayleigh Thorne; Claimant: Adele Nicola Rainsford; Defendant: David Protheroe-Beynon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Harassment (interim Injunction) / Interim Application (return Date) Extension of Interim Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction continued until trial or further order
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Freedom of Expression (echr Art 10), Family Proceedings Confidentiality, Civil Restraint Orders
Civil Procedure Media Law Harassment Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Freedom of Expression (echr Art 10) Family Proceedings Confidentiality Civil Restraint Orders

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kayleigh Thorne

Claimant

Adele Nicola Rainsford

Claimant

David Protheroe-Beynon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Harassment (interim Injunction) / Interim Application (return Date) Extension of Interim Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold for an interim injunction restraining harassment is met under s12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's conduct amounts to harassment and is likely to continue if not restrained
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's freedom of expression under ECHR Art 10 outweighs the Claimants' rights to be free from harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for an interim injunction under s12(3) HRA 1998 is met. The Defendant's conduct, including repeated threatening and offensive communications and public allegations, is more likely than not to be found at trial to amount to harassment and not reasonable. The balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages favour continuation of the injunction. The Defendant's Article 10 rights are not disproportionately infringed as the publications are not journalistic in nature and lack evidential basis. The injunction is proportionate and necessary to protect the Claimants from further harassment.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction continued until trial or further order

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from harassing, threatening, or publishing further allegations of dishonesty or professional misconduct against the Claimants, directly or indirectly, including via social media, pending trial or further order
  • Defendant prohibited from direct or indirect communication with the First Claimant except through a designated point of contact for legitimate Family Proceedings communications