Landlord who harassed local government legal staff member found in contempt of court

A large-scale landlord in Kent, Fergus Wilson, has been found in contempt of court after breaching a final injunction order that sought to stop him from harassing staff at Ashford Borough Council.

In Ashford Borough Council & Ors v Wilson [2024] EWHC 781 (KB) (10 April 2024), Mr Justice Antony Dunne considered more than 40 separate instances in which the council alleged Wilson had breached the injunction.

The final injunction order was made in September 2021 after Daryl Allen KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, concluded that the landlord had been harassing a legal team member named Samantha Clarke by insulting her and accusing her of criminal offences.

The injunction also ordered Wilson to only contact the council via a single point of contact, the council's director of law, Terrence Mortimer.

However, at a hearing on 12 March 2024 in which Wilson represented himself, the court heard the landlord had continued to harass Clarke and contact different members of staff at the council.

The claimants – the council and its chief executive, Tracey Kerly – alleged that Wilson breached the injunction in two different ways.

Firstly, they argued he breached the single point of contact provision in the injunction by emailing the council's leader, Cllr Noel Ovenden, making a series of requests to the council's Freedom of Information team, and sending letters to Kerly.

Secondly, the claimants alleged that Wilson broke an injunction provision prohibiting him from "pursuing a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of the Protected Persons".

Judge Dunne first considered whether the single point of contact provision had been breached.

Giving evidence at the hearing both orally and in writing, Wilson said he had not breached the single point of contact provision when he contacted Ovenden as his correspondence concerned legitimate political concerns.

He told the court: "If I want to contact Noel Ovenden and want to give him something in the media it is no different to what I do with other councils.

"Councils have a corporate responsibility they are individually responsible – is there anything wrong with writing to Rishi Sunak, saying this is not how you run the country and saying you are useless?"

He also argued that the contact he had with the FOI team was necessary because otherwise he would not have got the information he needed.

In defending his contact with Kerly, he explained that he was trying to be helpful as the case that he had sent her talked about the benefits of mediation.

Dunne J ultimately found that Wilson had breached the injunction's provision concerning a single point of contact 13 times in his correspondence.

The judge said he came to this conclusion as the terms of the injunction were "very clear" that the only person Wilson was allowed to contact was the head of legal, Terence Mortimer.

In addition, he said that Wilson's reasons as to why it was necessary for him to breach the single point of contact provision lacked merit.

Finally, he noted that the determinative factor in his finding that Wilson had breached the injunction order was "that the injunction order is an order of the Court and its terms must be obeyed".

"The Defendant does not have the option of deciding that it is reasonable for him to breach any of the conditions of the injunction," the judge said.

The judge then turned to the claim that Wilson had breached the injunction provision on harassment.

On this ground, the claimants submitted that the communications amounted to harassment and breached the injunction for two reasons.

Firstly, because Wilson continued to make hurtful personal comments and unfounded allegations of criminal conduct against Clarke.

Secondly, because Wilson continued to write correspondence to the claimants which contained "a large amount of information which it claims is irrelevant and shows that the Defendant has not accepted the outcome of the injunction hearing".

The claimants argued that the "irrelevant" communications amounted to harassment because:

1. "The sending of emails which are irrelevant to the Claimants continues a course of conduct by Mr Wilson which Mr Darryl Allen KC found to be 'unreasonable and oppressive behaviour, designed to frustrate or annoy the First Claimant and/or Mr Mortimer.
2. "Mr Wilson is continuing to reject the findings of the court and to try and argue that his behaviour did not constitute harassment. His refusal to accept the findings is now a feature of his ongoing harassment."

The judge first considered the arguments concerning Clarke's harassment.

A large part of Wilson's harassment campaign involved insults targeted towards Clarke.

Wilson's correspondence questioned Clarke's person's legal qualifications, criticised her appearance and accused her of criminal offences.

Records of previous FOI requests also show repeated attempts by Wilson to find out if Clarke was legally qualified.

The council argued that his communications breached the provision on harassment as they consisted of hurtful personal comments and unfounded allegations of criminal conduct against Clarke.

Concerning the hurtful personal comments aimed at Clarke, Dunne J concluded that Wilson had harassed Clarke on three occasions.

He said: "The Defendant knew the comments would cause Ms Clarke distress, as a result the Defendant therefore harassed her."

Regarding the claim he had harassed Clarke by accusing her of criminal offences, Wilson argued Clarke's conduct of litigation in his case was a criminal offence because he had been told by HHJ Simpkiss in a previous case that conducting litigation when not qualified to do so is a criminal offence.

However, the judge ultimately concluded that Wilson's allegations that Clarke had committed criminal offences were unwarranted and also constituted harassment. 

The judge then turned to the claims that Mortimer had suffered harassment due to the sheer volume of correspondence received from Wilson.

On this point, the claimants said this showed he did not accept the outcome of the injunction hearing, and the deluge of messages constituted 'unreasonable and oppressive behaviour' designed to frustrate and annoy.

The judge concluded that he was satisfied that Wilson harassed Mortimer in two different instances "by sending large volumes of irrelevant material to the Claimants and that this was the continuation of what Deputy High Court Judge Allen KC found to be an oppressive course of conduct".

Dunne J found that 20 out of 44 alleged breaches were found proved, while the remaining were not.

Sanctions for the breaches are set to be considered at a further hearing.

Adam Carey