Judge grants permanent injunction after finding emails and demands were tantamount to blackmail
A High Court judge has granted a permanent injunction preventing the father of a former client from harassing a law firm, its insurer and their legal representatives. In her ruling, Susie Alegre, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, described the behaviour of Andrew Baldwin as tantamount to blackmail.
The judge said Mr Baldwin had bombarded the claimants with threats and unfounded allegations by email. She found that he had followed up on these threats by visiting their offices after being told not to do so. She said his demands for money, combined with threats to circulate his allegations to the media and regulators, were clearly not reasonable.
The dispute began after Mr Baldwin’s daughter instructed London and Surrey firm Owen White and Catlin. In January 2021 he raised concerns about the service she received and the fees charged. After he remained dissatisfied with the firm’s response, he submitted a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman in November 2022.
Embed from Getty Images
Central to his complaint was his belief that his daughter did not sign the client care letter and that related documents, including email exchanges, were forged and fraudulent. The ombudsman process concluded with an agreed outcome under which the firm paid £859.64 to Mr Baldwin and his daughter to settle the fee dispute.
However, Mr Baldwin remained unhappy. In March 2023 he visited the firm’s Feltham office without warning. The firm reported that he refused to leave and acted in a threatening manner. Staff contacted the police and he left when officers arrived.
Mr Baldwin referred the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which took no action. The firm’s insurer, Travelers, instructed Mills and Reeve to review his allegations. In May 2024 Mills and Reeve rejected all claims of fraud and denied liability for the losses he alleged. The firm also rejected what the court described as the escalating quantum of his proposed claim, which rose from one hundred and seven thousand six hundred and fifty six pounds in February 2024 to one point eight million pounds in January 2025.
In May 2024 Mr Baldwin again visited the offices of Owen White and Catlin. In July 2024 he handed out leaflets to passers by outside the firm’s Shepperton office. He also attended the offices of Travelers. This year he sent numerous emails to people working at all three claimants. The emails included allegations of fraud, threats of public disclosure and encouragement to settle the matter before it became something he said they could not control.
An interim injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1977 was granted in March 2025. In the present decision, the judge considered whether the injunction should become permanent. Mr Baldwin acted as a litigant in person. Judge Alegre allowed him greater latitude but she concluded that none of the documents he relied on provided a defence to the harassment claim. She said he did not deny the allegations of harassment and continued to repeat unfounded allegations of fraud during the litigation.
Judge Alegre struck out the defence on the basis that the claimants could not identify any legal foundation for it. She granted summary judgment because there was no defence in law. She said the particulars of claim described a course of conduct that amounted to harassment. She referred to the constant stream of angry, threatening and abusive emails and his visits to offices which demonstrated his willingness to act on threats.
The judge said an injunction was necessary because nothing else would have stopped the behaviour. She said that if Mr Baldwin believed fraud had occurred, he should have reported the matter to the police. She added that although he may have begun by seeking justice for his daughter, the emails and conduct complained of in early 2025 were directed at extracting increasing sums of money from the claimants in order to bring the harassment to an end. She concluded that his actions were tantamount to blackmail.