Court of Appeal confirms power existed but refuses injunction against litigant
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Titan Wealth over a refused injunction aimed at preventing a former employee from sending abusive communications to its lawyers.
In Titan Wealth Holdings Limited v Okunola, the court held that the High Court had been wrong to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to grant the order sought. However, it ruled that, as a matter of discretion, no injunction should have been granted and none should now be made.
The appeal arose from proceedings brought by Titan Wealth Holdings Limited and associated claimants against Marian Atinuke Okunola, a former consultant and employee. Titan had previously obtained injunctive relief restraining harassment. Ms. Okunola was later found in contempt for breaching that order and received a suspended prison sentence, which was activated in February 2025.
Separately, Titan applied for a further injunction to restrain Ms. Okunola from sending abusive, insulting or grossly offensive communications to its legal team at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP. Mrs Justice Hill refused the application, holding that there was no “sound jurisdictional basis” to grant such relief.
Delivering the leading judgment, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, with whom Lord Justice Warby and Lady Justice Whipple agreed, found thatthe conclusion was legally incorrect. The court confirmed that the High Court possesses an inherent common law jurisdiction to protect the integrity of its own proceedings in the interests of justice. That power is not dependent on the existence of a separate cause of action.
However, the court declined to grant the injunction sought. It held that Titan’s original application had been too broad and extended beyond what was necessary to protect the proceedings. The judges also noted that contempt of court had not been alleged in relation to the communications relied upon, and no detailed evidential assessment had been undertaken to determine whether the conduct met the threshold of serious interference with the administration of justice.
The court further observed that the lawyers affected could have pursued their own remedy under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and that this was a relevant factor in the exercise of discretion.
Titan sought a revised injunction on appeal, framed in terms of prohibiting “indecent or grossly offensive” messages. The court refused that application, emphasising that there was no evidence of continuing misconduct and no current threat to the integrity of ongoing proceedings.
While confirming the existence of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal concluded that no order was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal was therefore dismissed.