Richard Wood & Anor v Sophie Fleming

Richard Wood & Anor v Sophie Fleming

The defendant's conduct constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as it was persistent, deliberate, unfounded, and caused substantial alarm and distress to the claimants, crossing the threshold into oppressive and unacceptable behaviour. The statutory defence under s.1(3) was not available, as the defendant's conduct was irrational and not genuinely for the purpose of preventing crime. The defendant also breached the terms of the injunction and was found in contempt of court, having been properly served and fully aware of the order's terms.

Parties
Claimant: Richard Wood; Claimant: Rebecca Ward; Defendant: Sophie Fleming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for claimants; injunction continued; defendant found in contempt; nominal damages awarded; indemnity costs ordered; permission to appeal refused for injunction proceedings.
Legal Topics
Harassment, Protection From Harassment, Probate Disputes, Injunction Enforcement, Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression, Professional Misconduct Allegations
Civil Procedure Probate Injunctions Contempt Harassment Protection From Harassment Probate Disputes Injunction Enforcement +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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Wood

Claimant

Rebecca Ward

Claimant

Sophie Fleming

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached the terms of the injunction and committed contempt of court
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's allegations of fraud and misconduct against the claimants were substantiated

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as it was persistent, deliberate, unfounded, and caused substantial alarm and distress to the claimants, crossing the threshold into oppressive and unacceptable behaviour. The statutory defence under s.1(3) was not available, as the defendant's conduct was irrational and not genuinely for the purpose of preventing crime. The defendant also breached the terms of the injunction and was found in contempt of court, having been properly served and fully aware of the order's terms.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimants; injunction continued; defendant found in contempt; nominal damages awarded; indemnity costs ordered; permission to appeal refused for injunction proceedings.

Orders

  • Injunction against defendant in terms set out on 13 August 2024, prohibiting publication or communication of allegations of criminal or professional misconduct against claimants, and prohibiting contact with claimants, their friends, family, and confidential information.
  • Defendant found in contempt for breaches of injunction between 4 July and 11 July 2024.