In a significant legal ruling, the High Court has determined that it does not possess the jurisdiction to grant a protective injunction on behalf of claimants against a defendant’s harassment of their lawyers. This decision arises from the case involving Titan Wealth Holdings and its associates against former employee Marian Atinuke Okunola.
Previously, the High Court had provided an interim injunction to the claimants, preventing Ms Okunola from harassing employees and spreading confidential information. Furthermore, this injunction obligated her to return any disseminated materials. However, Ms Okunola’s repeated breaches led to her being held in contempt by Mr Justice Chamberlain, resulting in a suspended six-month custody sentence.
The claimants, represented by a City law firm, sought to activate this suspended sentence, arguing Ms Okunola continued to target the firm with harassment aimed at their legal representatives. In a separate bid, they requested a protective order to stop her from sending abusive communications to or about their lawyers, which sometimes included sexually abusive and threatening language.
Mrs Justice Hill acknowledged the distress caused to the legal team through Ms Okunola’s communications, which were often crafted in an aggressive style, such as using all bold capitals and excessive punctuation. Despite the distress, Hill J clarified that there was no existing legal action between the claimants and the defendant specifically addressing the defendant’s conduct towards their legal representatives, thus limiting the court’s ability to provide the requested injunction.
The judge acknowledged the novelty of the application and permitted leave to appeal due to the untested legal grounds involved. She noted that if the affected lawyers desired to restrain Ms Okunola’s actions legally, they would need to initiate the injunction process themselves.
Concluding the proceedings, no costs were awarded, considering Ms Okunola’s unrepentant behaviour and her assertion that the lawyers ‘deserved’ such treatment. Hill J remarked on the reasonable nature of the claimants’ conduct in bringing forth the application, despite its reliance on a novel legal standpoint.
The High Court’s verdict underscores the complexities of jurisdiction in harassment cases involving legal representatives. While the decision provides grounds for an appeal, it highlights the need for legal practitioners to initiate their own actions in harassment disputes when the conduct impacts their ability to perform their duties effectively.
