Nephew Jailed After Threatening Lawyers Over £200K Inheritance Left to Charity by Aunt

A DISINHERITED nephew who threatened to “beat the sh*t” out of “w**ker” lawyers” after his aunt left her £200,000 estate to charity.

Dr Sean Stimson, 48, was also slapped with a £35,000 bill following a bitter row over the will of his late aunt, Helen Smith.

Dr Sean Stimson, 48, has been jailed and slapped with a £35,000 court bill following a bitter row over the will of his late aunt Credit: Champion News Service The house in Cloudberry Road, Swindon, was left to charities by Helen Smith Credit: Supplied by Champion News

The IT expert became “extremely emotionally involved” in the dispute after his “very close” aunt left her estate to the RSPCA and other under a 2016 will.

But Dr Stimson was adamant she had always intended her home on Cloudberry Road, – which made up most of the value of the estate – to stay in the .

He is still disputing the will, but has now been put behind bars for contempt of court and ordered to pay legal costs after writing an email and letter to the charities’ lawyers, Foot Anstey LLP.

London’s High Court heard how the enraged nephew wrote to the firm, addressing them as “w**nkers” and “b*tches” and threatened to “beat the “s**t” out of them if the house was not returned to him.

The City offices of solicitors firm Foot Anstey LLP said Stimson’s ‘abuse’ was in contempt of court Dr Sean Stimson outside London’s High Court Credit: Champion News Service

Mr Justice Griffiths yesterday handed him an immediate jail term of 28 days, saying that he had aggravated his two contempts of court by stating afterwards that he “thought he would get away with it because jails are full”.

The judge also ordered Dr Stimson to pay the law firm’s £35,000 costs of bringing the contempt proceedings against him.

Lawyers for the firm had told the court that the “abuse” in the email and the letter put Dr Stimson in contempt of court twice by breaching a previous order banning him from such conduct.

The order had settled a Foot Anstey harassment claim against him last year.

In a previous judgment on the dispute between Dr Stimson and the law firm, High Court judge Mrs Justice Hill set out the background to the row explaining: “His aunt left a will made in 2016 which made provision for three animal charities and a hospice to recover under her estate.

“It made no provision for Dr Stimson and this led to a dispute between him and Foot Anstey, who are the administrators of the estate, instructed by the beneficiary charities.”

Dr Stimson disputed his aunt’s will on grounds that she lacked sufficient mental capacity and understanding to make her 2016 will, also claiming that another later will of 2020 set out her true wishes about her £200,000 home.

But Mrs Justice Hill said that, on the evidence she had seen, he had not been able to “substantiate these assertions” and since then probate has been granted to the charities involved.

He has continued to dispute the validity of the will, but ended up in court after Foot Anstey accused him of a campaign of harassment against them.

He was accused of threatening to turn up at the firm’s and charities’ offices, of threatening to spread malware in their IT systems, and of “making obscene phone calls to female employees.”

Dr Stimson, who denied making any obscene phone calls, ended up settling the harassment claim with Foot Anstey in January 2025 which only permitted him to contact the firm on “bona fide” issues relating to his aunt’s estate.

Foot Anstey’s barrister, Kate Wilson, asked for him to be jailed, accusing him of breaching the terms with communications sent in June and September last year.

An email sent in June referred to an appeal he was bringing in relation to his aunt’s will and concluded: “My aunt’s last wishes were very clear, and they will not be ignored and if necessary defended by force.”

The barrister claimed: “Then in September, his threatening conduct became more serious, when he made another threat of violence towards Foot Anstey’s staff if they did not ‘return’ his aunt’s house to him.”

The letter was “abusively addressed” to “Dear Foot Anstey W**kers” and read: “I am giving you one week to return my aunt’s house and bury her properly.

“If not I will come and beat the sh*t out of all of you including the b*tches. I have had enough of your cr*p and the jails are full so I will just keep coming for you until you comply or are permanently hospitalised.”

Ms Wilson said the “b*tches” reference was especially troubling as the staff members who had worked on the charity will dispute were women.

The letter was a “clear breach of the undertakings” and contained a “direct threat”, the barrister argued, adding: “the vitriolic nature of that abuse added to the intensity of the threats of violence”.

Dr Stimson, fighting the contempt application, admitted sending an email to say his case would be “defended with force,” but claimed he was referring to legal force not physical violence.

He also claimed that he had nothing to do with the “w**kers” letter, accusing the law form of having printed it off and sent it to themselves.

His barrister Daniel Mullin, arguing that he ought not to be jailed, said he was “extremely emotionally involved in the underlying proceedings,” adding: “The start of all this was the death of someone who appears to have been very close to him.”

But sentencing him yesterday, Mr Justice Griffiths said: “The letter was more threatening than the email. It was understood to threaten grievous bodily harm against the claimant’s staff…. He did mean a threat of unlawful force.”

The firm had implemented “increased security measures” at their office due to the letter, he said, adding: “That was a reasonable step”.

“The letter was not fired off on the spur of the moment,” the judge said, adding that Dr Stimson had compounded the seriousness of the contempt by later saying that he “didn’t care about it and would get away with it because jails are full,” and by claiming that the law firm had sent the letter to themselves.

Saying that he was due no credit for admitting his contempt or showing any remorse, the judge concluded: “Although I recognise that he was very deeply invested in the legacy dispute…the balance is clearly against suspending the sentence.

“For the two contempts of court, I sentence Dr Stimson to 28 days’ immediate custody.”