Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Atinuke Okunola

Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Atinuke Okunola

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested protective injunction because no cause of action exists or is anticipated between the Defendant and the Claimants' lawyers, and none of the exceptions to the cause of action rule apply. The application must be brought by those directly affected (the lawyers) if relief is sought.

Parties
Claimant: Titan Wealth Holdings Limited; Claimant: Titan Settlement & Custody Limited; Claimant: Gretchen Roberts; Claimant: Tiffany Roberts; Defendant: Marian Atinuke Okunola
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment on Application for Protective Injunction
Outcome
Application for protective injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Protective Injunctions, Harassment, Case Management, Freedom of Expression, Costs
Civil Procedure Harassment Injunctions Protective Injunctions Case Management Freedom of Expression Costs

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 8 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Titan Wealth Holdings Limited

Claimant

Titan Settlement & Custody Limited

Claimant

Gretchen Roberts

Claimant

Tiffany Roberts

Claimant

Marian Atinuke Okunola

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment on Application for Protective Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a protective injunction to restrain abusive communications by a litigant to opposing counsel when no cause of action is anticipated by the counsel themselves
  2. 2 Whether exceptions to the cause of action rule permit such an injunction
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order given the conduct of the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested protective injunction because no cause of action exists or is anticipated between the Defendant and the Claimants' lawyers, and none of the exceptions to the cause of action rule apply. The application must be brought by those directly affected (the lawyers) if relief is sought.

Court Disposition

Application for protective injunction dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • Permission to appeal granted