Disinherited nephew faces jail for threatening to ‘beat the sh*t’ out of ‘w**ker’ lawyers in £200k charity estate row

A DISINHERITED nephew could face jail over claims he threatened to “beat the sh*t” out of “w**ker” lawyers after his aunt left her £200,000 fortune to charity. IT expert Sean Stimson has been locked in a bitter row over the will of his late aunt, Helen Smith, since she died in 2021 and left her estate to the RSPCA and other good causes. Dr Sean Stimson outside London’s High Court. Credit: Champion News Service The house in Cloudberry Road, Swindon, left to charities by the aunt of Sean Stimson, sparking a court fight Credit: Supplied by Champion News He claims his aunt wished for her Swindon home – which forms the majority of her estate – to stay in the family despite a 2016 will which donates it to charity. Dr Stimson has now been dragged to court by the charities’ lawyers, Foot Anstey LLP, accused of a campaign of “vitriolic” threats and abuse against them and their employees. Sign up for The Sun newsletter Thank you! The firm claim his “abuse” is contempt of court as he is in breach of a previous court order which banned him from such behaviour. The order was from a previous Foot Anstey harassment claim which was brought against Dr Stimson last year. The City offices of solicitors firm Foot Anstey in which have accused Dr Stimson of contempt of Court Credit: Champion News Service Champion News Service Ltd news@championnews.co.uk Tel: 07948286566 / 07914583378 Picture shows Dr Sean Stimson outside London’s High Court. Credit: Champion News Service He is now fighting the contempt application – which could see him jailed for up to two years – while still battling the ruling on his aunt’s will. Although he admits sending an email to say his case would be “defended with force,” he says that was not intended as a threat of violence and that he had nothing to do with the “w**kers” letter. 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 in Cloudberry Road, Swindon. High Court Judge Mrs Justice Hill said during a previous judgment, 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. Most read in The Sun Foot Anstey then accused Dr Stimson of a campaign of harassment against them amid the will row. He was accused of threatening to turn up at the firm’s and charities’ office, of threatening to spread malware in their IT systems, and of “making obscene phone calls to female employees.” Dr Stimson, who flatly denied making any obscene phone calls, ended up settling the harassment claim with Foot Anstey on the basis of a series of undertakings hammered out and recorded in a court order in January 2025. Those undertakings permitted him to contact the firm on “bona fide” issues relating to his aunt’s estate, but barred him from any communication “that is irrelevant to the legacy matter of these proceedings – or that is abusive or threatening or otherwise involves harassment.” Back in court this week, Foot Anstey’s barrister, Kate Wilson, accused him of breaching the terms of the undertaking 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”. “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,” claimed the barrister. 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”. She asked the judge, Mr Justice Griffiths, to find Dr Stimson in contempt of court for breaching the undertakings, with the potential then for a prison sentence. But Daniel Mullin, barrister for Dr Stimson, denied the “w**kers” letter had anything to do with his client, pointing out that the postmark was nowhere near his address. “The claimants are totally incapable of proving to the relevant standard who sent the letter. The evidence relied upon by Foot Anstey is wholly insufficient,” he continued. “It is accepted that the letter has the defendant’s typed name on the bottom and referred to the returning of ‘an aunt’s house’. This is not direct evidence. “Fingerprints or DNA on the letter would not be considered direct evidence, so it cannot be the case that a simple typed signature is direct evidence.” On the matter of the June email, he said the terms had been misunderstood and contained no underlying threat of violence, but was merely him stating his intention to pursue his case about the will. “The language in the email is consistent with the defendant intending to convey that he would defend his position fully and to the limit of his ability – ‘with force’ being synonymous, for example, with robustly,” he told the judge. After three hours of evidence and submissions from both barristers, the judge reserved his decision in the case, to be given at a later date. If Dr Stimson is found in contempt of court, he could be jailed for up to two years or receive an unlimited fine.