Ward v Fleming [2024] EWHC 1421 (Ch) (14 November 2024)

Ward v Fleming [2024] EWHC 1421 (Ch) (14 November 2024)

Ms Fleming's conduct constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as it was persistent, deliberate, oppressive, and caused substantial alarm and distress to Mr Wood and Ms Ward. Her allegations of fraud and misconduct were unfounded, irrational, and perverse, failing to meet the statutory defence under s.1(3). The claimants' Art.8 rights outweighed Ms Fleming's Art.10 rights. The injunction is upheld, and contempt proceedings are to follow.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1421 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Richard Wood; Claimant: Rebecca Ward; Defendant: Sophie Fleming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Harassment and Contempt Proceedings / Trial and Judgment
Outcome
Claim for harassment upheld; injunction continued; contempt proceedings to follow.
Legal Topics
Protection From Harassment Act 1997, CPR 81 Contempt, Probate Disputes, Freedom of Expression (echr Art.10), Private Life (echr Art.8), Company Law
Civil Procedure Probate Injunctions Harassment Contempt of Court Protection From Harassment Act 1997 CPR 81 Contempt Probate Disputes +3 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Wood

Claimant

Rebecca Ward

Claimant

Sophie Fleming

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Harassment and Contempt Proceedings / Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sophie Fleming committed harassment against Richard Wood and Rebecca Ward under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether Sophie Fleming breached court injunctions amounting to contempt under CPR 81
  3. 3 Whether allegations of fraud and misconduct against the claimants were substantiated

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Fleming's conduct constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as it was persistent, deliberate, oppressive, and caused substantial alarm and distress to Mr Wood and Ms Ward. Her allegations of fraud and misconduct were unfounded, irrational, and perverse, failing to meet the statutory defence under s.1(3). The claimants' Art.8 rights outweighed Ms Fleming's Art.10 rights. The injunction is upheld, and contempt proceedings are to follow.

Court Disposition

Claim for harassment upheld; injunction continued; contempt proceedings to follow.

Orders

  • Ms Fleming restrained from harassing Mr Wood and Ms Ward by any means, including social media and electronic communication.
  • Ms Fleming prohibited from contacting claimants' friends, family, staff, clients, or suppliers except as necessary for ongoing proceedings.