Timothy Robert Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor

On the return date of an interim injunction, the court must continue the injunction where the claimant is likely to succeed, damages are inadequate and the balance of convenience favours continuation. The court must give particular regard to freedom of expression under Article 10, especially where communications are directed to a Member of Parliament. That consideration does not require protection for allegations which are plainly false. An injunction may prohibit specified allegations of criminal conduct or judicial misconduct without imposing a blanket prohibition on communications with the recipient.

The claimant sought continuation of an interim injunction previously granted without notice against the defendant. The injunction restrained allegations that the claimant, acting as executor of an estate, had committed fraud, money laundering, theft, another criminal offence or conduct amounting to judicial misconduct.

The defendant opposed continuation, relying on alleged public interest disclosures concerning bankruptcy proceedings, tax, estate monies and the dismissal of an appeal. He also challenged the injunction as unconstitutional insofar as it affected communications with his Member of Parliament. The court considered the defendant’s evidence and submissions together with the earlier judgment granting interim relief.

1. The interim injunction was continued. The court reaffirmed that the relevant questions were whether the claimant was likely to succeed at trial, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lay.
2. The defendant’s allegations concerning the claimant’s involvement in bankruptcy proceedings, Capital Gains Tax, monies paid to the defendant’s mother and the dismissal of an appeal were unsupported. The claimant had no demonstrated involvement in the matters alleged. The defendant’s evidence did not rebut the conclusion that the communications were irrational, baseless and likely to amount to harassment.
3. The court relied on Winsor v Vale in explaining the bankruptcy history and the basis for the bankruptcy order. It also relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Winsor v Vale to conclude that, after bankruptcy, the trustees stood in the defendant’s shoes and were entitled to seek dismissal of the appeal. The incomplete paperwork did not invalidate the dismissal.
4. The constitutional challenge was assessed under section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10. Freedom of expression was an important factor, with added weight where communications were made to an MP. However, the allegations the defendant wished to make were plainly false, which significantly reduced the weight attributable to his Article 10 claim.
5. The injunction was not a blanket prohibition on writing to the defendant’s MP. It prohibited only specified allegations or suggestions of criminal conduct or judicial misconduct by the claimant in connection with his role as executor.

1. High Court (King’s Bench Division): an interim injunction was granted without notice on 2 February 2024 in Pattinson v Winsor [2024] EWHC 230 (KB). On the return date, the injunction was continued.