Injunction continued after evidence of emails, TikTok posts and threats causing alarm to solicitor and barrister
The High Court has extended interim injunctions against a litigant-in-person accused of harassing a solicitor and barrister involved in family proceedings through threatening communications, TikTok videos and complaints to regulators.
In Thorne v Protheroe-Beynon, Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC ruled that the evidence justified continued injunctive relief pending trial.
The claim was brought by solicitor Kayleigh Thorne of Venters Solicitors and barrister Adele Rainsford of Lamb Chambers, both of whom had acted in family proceedings involving the defendant, David Protheroe-Beynon.
According to the judgment, Mr Protheroe-Beynon sent repeated emails and messages accusing the lawyers of dishonesty, corruption and professional misconduct. The court also heard evidence that he published videos on TikTok criticising the claimants and threatening further publicity campaigns.
The communications extended beyond social media. Complaints were made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the police.
The court heard that some messages contained threatening language directed at the claimants personally and professionally. One email warned solicitor Kayleigh Thorne: “You will find I can be vindictive, patient resourceful, and unforgiving.” Another communication stated: “By then the damage will be done to your personal reputation. Who needs a machete? Think about it.”
Judge Eardley stressed that the proceedings were not concerned with the underlying family dispute itself, but with whether the defendant’s conduct towards the lawyers amounted to harassment. The judgment noted that Ms Rainsford had appeared at only two hearings in 2024 and no longer had any active involvement in the family case, yet continued to face online allegations and complaints.
The court accepted the claimants’ submission that the communications and publications appeared designed to pressure the lawyers into withdrawing from the litigation.
The judge also referred to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Titan Wealth, observing that courts may intervene where conduct threatens not only individuals but the proper administration of justice and the integrity of legal proceedings.
Although the court continued the injunctions, it declined to prohibit future complaints to regulators or the police. Judge Eardley said such bodies were capable of dealing appropriately with complaints that were “meritless or vexatious”.
The injunctions require Mr Protheroe-Beynon to communicate only through the practice manager at Venters Solicitors, who will act as a filter for correspondence connected to the family proceedings.
Concluding the judgment, Judge Eardley said: “In my judgment, the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction. On the evidence of the claimants, the defendant’s current activities and threats of further publication are causing them real and immediate alarm and distress.”