Travelers Insurance v Baldwin: harassment claim succeeds with permanent injunction

The High Court has granted summary judgement and a permanent injunction in harassment proceedings brought by Travelers Insurance Company Limited, Owen White & Catlin LLP, and Mills & Reeve LLP against litigant in person Andrew Baldwin, striking out his defence for failing to comply with procedural requirements.

Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre's judgement, handed down on 13 November 2025, concerned a course of conduct by Baldwin between 10 February and 5 March 2025, following a protracted dispute about legal fees charged to his daughter by OWC.

Baldwin's daughter had been a client of OWC between 2019 and 2021. After complaining about fees and services, the matter was resolved through the Legal Ombudsman with a payment of £859.64. However, Baldwin remained dissatisfied, convinced that his daughter had never signed the Client Care Letter and that documentation was fraudulent.

Between March 2023 and February 2025, Baldwin escalated his conduct, making unannounced visits to solicitors' offices, demanding increasingly large sums (eventually reaching £1.8 million), and sending threatening emails to expanding lists of recipients including regulators and media organisations. When Travelers arranged for his emails to be automatically redirected in February 2025, Baldwin explicitly threatened to add more recipients "so that the news organisations can contact you directly".

The claimants brought proceedings under sections 1(1A) and 3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The particulars of claim detailed emails threatening office visits, public exposure of alleged fraud, and demands for settlement with tight deadlines. Baldwin attended Travelers' London office on 13 February 2025 despite warnings, filming the encounter with security.

An interim injunction was granted by Jay J on 5 March 2025. Baldwin's subsequent application to discharge this order was dismissed as totally without merit by Garnham J, as was an appeal to Lewison LJ.

Deputy Judge Alegre found that none of Baldwin's four purported defence documents complied with CPR 16.5. Rather than addressing the specific allegations of harassment, Baldwin simply repeated his fraud allegations about the underlying dispute. The judge noted that litigants in person must comply with procedural rules to uphold the rule of law and respect the overriding objective.

The defences were found to be "unreasonably vague and incoherent" and an abuse of the court's process under CPR 3.4(2)(b).

Applying the principles from Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom, the court found the claimants had a realistic prospect of success. The course of conduct clearly amounted to "a persistent and deliberate course of unacceptable and oppressive conduct" causing alarm, fear and distress.

Crucially, the judge held that truth would not be a defence to harassment, citing Merlin Entertainments PLC v Cave and Pattinson v Winsor. Even if Baldwin's allegations about the Client Care Letter were true, "the relentless scatter-gun repetition of allegations to all and sundry is likely to be harassment".

The judge noted that Baldwin's conduct had evolved from seeking justice for his daughter to extracting money through threats "tantamount to blackmail". Three separate investigations had found no evidence of fraud.

Finding the injunction both necessary and proportionate under section 12 of the Human Rights Act, the court granted permanent injunctive relief. Baldwin's two applications were dismissed as totally without merit, continuing a pattern established in earlier proceedings where three previous applications had received the same determination.