Will: Previous ruling had rejected Robert Winsor’s claims of misconduct
The High Court has granted a final injunction to stop a district judge being harassed by his brother-in-law over a will.
Judge Aidan Eardley KC said the “constant theme” of emails sent by Robert Ian Winsor was that Timothy Pattinson, a district judge in the magistrates’ court, was “allegedly engaged in very serious misconduct, including criminal misconduct” in respect of his mother-in-law’s will and her estate.
Mr Winsor has “obstinately refused to accept the outcome of the will proceedings”, he found.
Judge Eardley, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said DJ Pattinson was granted an interim injunction in February this year by Mrs Justice Steyn to stop his brother-in-law publishing certain specified allegations.
DJ Pattinson made a further application in May, seeking summary judgment and/or a strike-out of Mr Winsor’s defence, and an application seeking to commit him for contempt of court on the grounds that he had breached the interim injunction.
Judge Eardley said the contempt proceedings would be dealt with separately.
Mr Pattinson is married to Mr Winsor’s sister, Juliet; their mother died in December 2022, and her will appointed her and Mr Pattinson, who is not a beneficiary, as executors.
Under the will, she receives a gift of £100,000 and Mr Winsor a life interest in their mother’s property, with the residuary estate to be split equally between them.
Mr Winsor challenged the will’s validity, claiming it had been procured through “fraudulent calumny and undue influence” by the executors, and applied to have DJ Pattinson removed as executor.
Master Pester upheld the will as valid in November 2023, dismissing all Mr Winsor’s allegations, as well as the application to remove DJ Pattinson as executor.
Mr Winsor was ordered to pay the executors’ costs on an indemnity basis and made a “limited civil restraint” order against him.
Judge Eardley said DJ Pattinson relied on 14 emails sent to him by his brother-in-law, 12 of them copied to the personal assistant of the chief magistrate. Other “frequently occurring addressees” were the chief magistrate himself, District Judge Karen Doyle (honorary secretary of the Association of His Majesty’s District Judges), “various judges” involved in earlier litigation brought by Mr Winsor, the chief executive of HM Courts & Tribunals Service, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Attorney General’s Office and Mr Winsor’s MP.
“Generally the emails were copied to the claimant’s own solicitors, thus ensuring that they would come to his attention.”
DJ Pattinson said Mr Winsor’s conduct was causing him “considerable distress”, and it was “extremely unpleasant and distressing to see such allegations being made”. He had to “look at each one to see if someone new is being copied in”.
Judge Eardley said Mr Winsor, who did not attend the High Court hearing earlier this year, “does not appear to dispute that he sent all the emails complained of” and his documents were “devoted to asserting that everything he has said in his emails is true”, including the allegations that Master Pester rejected.
He “appears to contend” that the emails could not amount to harassment because they were not sent directly to DJ Pattinson – this was incorrect, the judge went on.
Mr Winsor had “no realistic prospect of defending this claim and there is no other reason for the claim to proceed to trial”.
Although the volume of material from him had “increased enormously”, his allegations “appear as baseless now” as Mrs Justice Steyn had considered them to be.
“He has not indicated that there is evidence not yet deployed that will emerge at trial and change the position. I see no reason to expect any such development.”
Granting summary judgment and a final injunction, Judge Eardley said that even “ignoring the communications that are to be the subject of the contempt application”, it was clear that the defendant was “continuing to send his harassing emails”.
The judge said there was no claim for damages, but he awarded costs on the indemnity basis because Mr Winsor’s stance in this litigation has been “demonstrably unreasonable and takes the case out of the norm”.
Leave a Comment