It is rare to see corporate entities bring a harassment claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, but there were surprisingly three of them involved – two solicitors and an insurance company – who sought Court intervention against a relentless individual, Andrew Baldwin.
A dispute originated when Owen White & Caitlin (OWC) represented Baldwin’s daughter in Employment Tribunal proceedings. Baldwin subsequently became dissatisfied with both the service and the fees. He also alleged fraud claiming that OWC had fraudulently added his daughter’s signature to the Client Care Letter by way of confirmation of the terms.
After engaging in regulatory complaints and fee challenges, he expanded his demands—seeking approximately £107,656.34 in early 2024, which ballooned to £1.8 million by January 2025. This involved OWC’s indemnity insurers, Travelers Insurance Company Ltd (Travelers), becoming involved. Mills & Reeve was then instructed by Travelers under a dual retainer with OWC in relation to Baldwin’s conduct towards Travelers and OWC.
Unsatisfied by the outcome of his complaints, Baldwin’s behaviour escalated, which allegedly included:
- Emails send or copied to numerous individuals employed by or affiliated with the three claimants which threatened to visit their offices and to confront them directly and to make public the evidence of alleged fraud;
- Turning up at Travelers’ offices;
- Sending increasingly aggressive and abusive emails to the Claimants;
- Handing out leaflets to passersby outside OWC’s offices; and
- Repeated threats to “expose” alleged wrongdoing to regulators and the media.
The campaign intensified over the course of several months, leading all three Claimants to seek urgent court intervention including an interim injunction which was granted on 5 March 2025.
Baldwin applied to have the interim injunction discharged but his application was dismissed by Garnham J on 2 May 2025 as totally without merit.
Baldwin sought permission to appeal but this was refused by Order of Lord Justice Lewison in the Court of Appeal on 20 October 2025.
The Claimants issued an application for strike out of Baldwin’s defence or summary judgment and a permanent injunction.
On 6 November 2025, Ms Susie Alegre, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, heard the application and in her Judgment handed down on 13 November 2025 made an order:
- striking out Baldwin’s Defence – the Judge commented that the statements of case submitted by Baldwin were of the type highlighted by Teare J on CPR 3.4(2)(b) in Towler v Wills [2010] EWHC 1209 (Comm) – that is “unreasonably vague and incoherent” and they must be considered “an abuse of the Court’s process and […] likely to obstruct the just disposal of the case”;
- granting summary judgment in the Claimants’ favour – the Judge commented that “the way in which Mr Baldwin has bombarded the claimants with threats and entirely unfounded allegations by email, his follow up on his threats attending the claimants’ offices when he has been clearly told not to and his increasingly oppressive demands for money backed by threats to spread his baseless allegations more broadly to the media and regulators are very clearly not reasonable… Mr Baldwin simply has no defence in law. To allow the proceedings to continue in such circumstances would be unjust to both parties and against the overriding objective as it would simply serve to use up court time and incur greater legal costs when the outcome is already obvious”; and
- accordingly imposing a permanent injunction against Baldwin.
Why corporate entities were allowed to bring harassment claims?
Harassment claims are often thought to be available only to natural persons.
Section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 states that:
“A person must not pursue a course of conduct… which amounts to harassment of another.”
The Act does not limit “another” to individuals. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, the term “person” includes corporations, unless a statute states otherwise.
Thus, although a company cannot feel distress, harassment aimed at a company will generally be harassment experienced by identifiable individuals within the organisation.
The Judge made clear that a non-human legal entity, such as a company or LLP, may obtain an injunction to protect individuals from harassment: Merlin Entertainments PLC v Cave [2014] EWHC 3036 (QB); [2015] EMLR 3, [31]; Foot Anstey LLP v Stimson [2024] EWHC 2621 (KB), [41]-[50].
In this case, Baldwin’s conduct was directed not at faceless corporate entities but at:
- Solicitors and staff at OWC;
- Claims handlers and representatives at Travelers; and
- Solicitors at Mills & Reeve
Through threats, repeated unwanted communications, and personal accusations, Baldwin created a situation capable of causing alarm, stress, and disruption to those individuals.
Whilst disgruntled clients may sometimes have legitimate complaints, it is one thing to pursue these through the correct channels (as Baldwin did initially through the SRA) and another to descend into abusive conduct. The Judge also made clear when granting summary judgment that it was not concerned about whether Baldwin’s complaints were true because “truth would not be a defence to the harassment claim”. Baldwin’s central submission was a call for more evidence relating to the underlying fee dispute and he wanted a fraud trial to test whether the signature was genuine. However, the Judge made clear that the veracity of any signature was not relevant to a claim for harassment.
If you are contemplating embarking on a campaign against solicitors (or any other third party for that matter), it is important that you seek legal advice before doing so. Similarly, if you are facing this type of conduct or similar from another, whether you are a corporate entity or individual, you should seek advice immediately.