A solicitor and a barrister have secured an interim anti-harassment injunction against a vexatious litigant in person accused of waging a sustained campaign aimed at forcing them to drop their client. Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC granted the order in Thorne and Rainsford v Protheroe-Beynon in early May 2026, applying the court’s restated jurisdiction to protect its own process.
For practitioners handling cases involving difficult litigants in person, the ruling sets out a workable route to relief that operates alongside the more familiar Protection from Harassment Act 1997 route.
What happened?
Kayleigh Thorne is a solicitor at Venters Solicitors with conduct of family court proceedings. Adele Rainsford is a barrister at Lamb Chambers, who had been instructed in two hearings in 2024 but had no further involvement in the case.
The opposing litigant in person, David Protheroe-Beynon, allegedly bombarded both lawyers with aggressive and threatening emails. The judge heard that the campaign escalated beyond email into abusive TikTok videos, complaints to the police and to the lawyers’ regulators, and threats to “destroy” them through a media campaign.
Both lawyers, described by the judge as “relatively junior”, brought proceedings seeking interim relief.
What is the legal basis for the injunction?
The judge identified two potential routes. The first was a free-standing claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The judge observed that this was a viable route, even allowing for the difficulty of pursuing it against a litigant in person who would resist the very idea of being restrained.
The second route was the court’s inherent jurisdiction to restrain conduct by a party to litigation that threatens the integrity of its own process. This jurisdiction was recently restated by the Court of Appeal in Titan Wealth (February 2026). That decision confirmed that the court can act to prevent harassment of opposing lawyers where the harassment is calculated to interfere with the conduct of litigation.
The judge granted relief under the Protection from Harassment Act route on this occasion. He noted, however, that the Titan Wealth jurisdiction is available to both the High Court and the Family Court in cases where similar conduct affects pending proceedings.
What does the ruling add?
The case is the clearest application yet of the Titan Wealth jurisdiction in a live family-law context. It puts a workable tool in the hands of solicitors and counsel facing the kind of escalating, multi-channel campaign that has become more common in the social-media era.
The judge’s observations on civil restraint orders are also useful. He noted that the courts have a carefully calibrated scheme for restraining vexatious litigants, and that this scheme can sit alongside discrete injunctive relief in favour of individual lawyers.
Junior solicitors and counsel are increasingly the target of online campaigns waged by opposing litigants in person. The judgment confirms that the court will provide concrete protection where the conduct meets the threshold, and that regulators’ complaints and social-media campaigns can form part of the picture. Firms should know that the relief is available and that the Titan Wealth jurisdiction is now properly bedded in. For junior practitioners, the ruling validates a route to protection that does not require the affected lawyer to absorb the cost or stress in silence.
What should firms do?
For supervisors and managing partners, three practical points emerge.
First, document early. Where a litigant in person begins a pattern of abusive or aggressive communication directed at named lawyers, the firm should capture the evidence systematically. Email threads, social-media posts and regulatory complaints all matter.
Second, consider the route. Free-standing Protection from Harassment Act claims and the Titan Wealth inherent-jurisdiction route are not mutually exclusive. Some campaigns will warrant both.
Third, support juniors. The judge specifically noted the junior status of both lawyers. Where harassment is targeted at trainees, junior solicitors or pupils, the firm and chambers have a real role to play in escalating the matter rather than expecting the affected lawyer to handle it personally.