TikTok: LiP made accusations in videos
A solicitor and a barrister in a family case have been granted an interim injunction against the litigant in person on the other side accused of harassing them.
Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC was told that David Protheroe-Beynon had bombarded them with aggressive and threatening emails to try to deter them from representing their client.
The court heard how the harassment intensified beyond emails, with abusive TikTok videos, complaints to the police and legal regulators, and threats to “destroy” the lawyers through a media campaign.
The judge described both Kayleigh Thorne, a solicitor at Venters Solicitors with conduct of the Family Court proceedings, and Adele Rainsford, a barrister at Lamb Chambers, as “relatively junior”.
He noted that Ms Rainsford had been instructed for two hearings in 2024 and had no involvement in the case since.
The pair were granted interim injunctions last month on an urgent without-notice basis and at last week’s hearing the injunctions were extended until the trial of their harassment claim.
Venters managing partner June Venters KC represented them at the hearing and said that Mr Protheroe-Beynon had widened his attacks in response to the harassment claim and injunction applications to include her and her firm.
These included new complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board, complaints to the police, “and communications indicating that the defendant has now informed Private Eye that Ms Venters herself is the subject of a police investigation (whereas, in fact, there would appear to be no investigation and the defendant has simply made a complaint to the police on the basis that she and the claimants had not compiled the hearing bundle as he would have wished)”.
Judge Eardley said Mr Protheroe-Beynon was “deeply concerned about the course that the family proceedings are taking”.
But the judge stressed that, while the injunction did not prevent him from making further complaints to regulators or the police, “I have not seen any admissible evidence that could reasonably support such complaints, either against the claimants or against Ms Venters and her firm”.
Regulators and the police “have their own procedures for dismissing, or taking no further action on, complaints that appear to be meritless or vexatious”.
The ruling detailed the types of emails he sent – in one, he told Ms Thorne that “you will find I can be vindictive, patient resourceful, and unforgiving” – and threatened to release documents from the case to ITN, with photographs of Ms Thorne.
“By then the damage will be done to your personal reputation. Who needs a machete? Think about it…. You want to think I’m delusional.”
In various TikTok videos, he accused both lawyers of incompetence and dishonesty.
Ms Venters told the hearing the purpose of all these communications was to make the lawyers stop acting in the family case. They had caused “considerable harm and distress” to Ms Thorne and Ms Rainsford.
Mr Protheroe-Beynon, who represented himself at the hearing, did not dispute sending or publishing the emails and videos. He said he was worried about the welfare of the children who were the subject of the family proceedings and wanted to protect them.
Judge Eardley made it clear he would only consider the evidence relating to the harassment.
He concluded: “In my judgement, the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction. On the evidence of the claimants, the defendant’s current activities and threats of further publication are causing them real and immediate alarm and distress.”
The injunction requires him to contact only Venters’ practice manager, who will pass on relevant communications.
But the judge declined to make it broader, such as to prohibit him from issuing any civil claims against lawyers alleging professional misconduct.
While it was “hard to see how any such claims could be pursued” – as they did not owe him any duty of care – the courts had “a carefully calibrated scheme” for making civil restraint orders against vexatious litigants.
The judge observed too that the recent Court of Appeal ruling in Titan Wealth recognised that the court has jurisdiction to restrain any conduct by parties to litigation that is serious enough to threaten the integrity of its own process.
“The claimants did not invite me to exercise this jurisdiction for now, but it is something that this court and the Family Court will no doubt bear in mind going forward.”
Leave a Comment