Richard Wood & Anor v Sophie Fleming

The court determined that it had jurisdiction to determine the probate issues and to grant injunctive relief against a defendant resident in Northern Ireland. It applied s.25 Senior Courts Act 1981 and relevant rules on forum non conveniens (Spiliada) to conclude England was the clearly appropriate forum for the disputed 2020 will given the English form of the will, English executors and material English assets. The court refused the claimant-defendant's applications for summary judgment on the will's invalidity and for removal of the executors, finding those matters require full evidence at trial, but granted summary relief on the narrower point that the defendant's allegations of criminal and professional misconduct against the executors were unsupported by contemporaneous documents. The court continued and modified the interim injunction restraining the defendant's online campaign, appointed independent interim administrators pending suit and replaced the proposed litigation friend with a suitable alternative.

Background and parties. The litigation arose after the sudden death of Mr Brendan Fleming and concerned the administration and validity of his will of 4 December 2020. The executors (Mr Wood and Ms Ward) applied for various reliefs including an injunction against Ms Fleming to restrain an online campaign of alleged harassment. Ms Fleming (resident in Northern Ireland) counter-applied in probate to challenge the will, to remove the executors, and sought summary judgment and disclosure.

Nature of the claims/applications.

• Probate claim: declaration of invalidity of the 2020 will and removal of the executors.
• Injunction claim: interim and permanent relief under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the court's equitable jurisdiction to restrain a course of conduct involving online publications and communications.
• Miscellaneous applications: summary judgment (CPR 24), third-party disclosure, appointment of administrators pending suit, and appointment of a litigation friend for the deceased's children.

Issues framed by the court.

• Jurisdiction: whether the English High Court had jurisdiction to determine probate issues involving Turkish property and to grant an injunction against a Northern Ireland resident (considering s.25 SCA, CJJA and Schedule 4).
• Forum non conveniens: whether proceedings should be stayed for Turkey or Northern Ireland.
• Summary judgment: whether the defendant's challenges to the will and the executors' harassment claim had only fanciful prospects.
• Harassment and freedom of expression: whether the defendant's online conduct amounted to harassment under s.1 PHA and, if so, whether an injunction would be compatible with Article 10 ECHR and s.12 HRA.
• Practical administration: whether independent administrators should be appointed and who should act as litigation friend for the children.

Court's reasoning and conclusions. (i) Jurisdiction: the court held England had jurisdiction to determine matters relating to the English assets and the will under s.25 SCA; the court was the clearly appropriate forum on a Spiliada analysis because the will was prepared in England, executors and significant assets were in England and, even if Turkish law applied to immovable Turkish property, that did not make Turkey a distinctly more appropriate forum. The court also concluded it had power to grant injunctive relief against the Northern Ireland resident by service and under applicable intra-UK jurisdiction rules (Sch.4 CJJA, rule 3(c) gateway for torts). (ii) Summary judgment and will validity: the court refused summary judgment on the validity issues (testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval), because those are fact‑intensive matters for trial. It did, however, find that the defendant's published allegations that the executors had engaged in criminal or professional misconduct were unsupported by contemporaneous evidence and had no realistic prospect of success. (iii) Harassment and Art.10: applying the statutory tests in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and balancing with Article 10 and s.12 HRA, the court concluded that the executors had a real prospect of establishing at trial that the defendant's sustained online campaign amounted to harassment and that, after careful proportionality assessment, an injunction against further publication of allegations of criminal or professional misconduct (and a limited mandatory removal of such posts) was justified. (iv) Practical orders: the court refused to remove the chosen executors under s.50 Administration of Justice Act 1985, appointed independent interim administrators pending suit, and appointed a neutral family member as litigation friend for the children because the defendant was unsuitable for that role.

Wider context/implications: the judgment addresses intra-UK jurisdiction for online torts, the interaction of harassment remedies with Article 10 and s.12 HRA, and reiterates that allegations made publicly in the course of probate litigation will be scrutinised for both legal merit and proportionality before injunctive relief is granted.

At first instance the court (HHJ Tindal) refused the defendant's summary judgment applications and her application to remove the executors, appointed independent interim administrators pending suit and a litigation friend for the children, and continued but modified the interim injunction restraining the defendant's online publications. Rationale: England was the proper forum for the probate dispute; will validity issues require full trial evidence; the defendant's public allegations of criminal and professional misconduct were unsupported and had no realistic prospect of success; and the executors had a realistic prospect of establishing harassment, justifying proportionate injunctive relief compatible with Article 10 ECHR and s.12 HRA.