Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Atinuke Okunola

The court has an inherent common law power to grant an injunction against a litigant to protect the integrity of its own process and proceedings in the interests of justice. The power does not depend on an independent cause of action and is not confined to threatened criminal contempt.

An applicant must show a threat or real prospect of serious misconduct creating a material risk of interference with the proceedings. Where contempt is not established, the court must address freedom of expression, the immunity attaching to litigation communications, and any more convenient remedy. Any order must be no wider than necessary and must not impede the litigant's proper conduct of the case.

Titan succeeded at trial in claims arising from the respondent's conduct, but sought a further injunction restraining abusive communications to its solicitors, Quinn Emanuel. The application was made during the proceedings and was intended to apply to all proceedings involving a Titan claimant.

Mrs Justice Hill dismissed the application, holding that there was no sound jurisdictional basis because the solicitors, rather than Titan, had the potential harassment claim. Her decision is reported at [2024] EWHC 2641 (KB).

Titan appealed. The central issue was whether the court could, at Titan's request, restrain serious abusive conduct towards its legal team where that conduct interfered with the conduct of the litigation and, if so, whether an injunction should be granted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was wrong to hold that she had no jurisdictional basis for the order. The court has an inherent common law power to protect the integrity of its process and proceedings in the interests of justice. Following Convoy Collateral and Wolverhampton, that power is not conditional on an independent cause of action.

2. The power is not confined to conduct which would amount to criminal contempt. An applicant must, however, establish a threat or real prospect of serious misconduct creating a material risk of interference with the integrity of the proceedings. Misconduct satisfying that standard will often also be sufficiently serious to found contempt.

3. If contempt is alleged and proved, neither article 10 nor litigation immunity prevents the court from protecting its proceedings. If contempt is not established, the court must consider whether the proposed restraint affects article 10 and section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and whether the relevant communications attract the immunity attaching to statements made in litigation. Immune communications cannot be treated as interference with the administration of justice.

4. The relief must be tailored to the threatened misconduct and the risk to the proceedings. It must not extend beyond what is necessary or interfere unduly with the litigant's freedom to conduct the case. The availability of a direct claim by the affected lawyers under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was a relevant discretionary consideration, though not a jurisdictional bar.

5. A CPR Part 23 application can in principle found such relief, but an order granted solely to protect extant proceedings is interim in substance and will ordinarily not outlast them. Here the original order was too broad, the necessary detailed assessment of contempt, article 10 and immunity had not been undertaken, a direct harassment remedy was available, and the proceedings were nearly complete. The amended order was also refused because there was no current threat of serious misconduct creating a material risk to the proceedings.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The court held that the High Court had inherent jurisdiction to grant the type of injunction sought, but upheld the practical result because neither the original nor amended injunction should be granted.
• High Court, King's Bench Division (Hill J): The further injunction application was dismissed on the basis that there was no sound jurisdictional basis for relief: [2024] EWHC 2641 (KB) .