Committal for Contempt of Court: THE ESTATE OF THE LATE THOMAS GEORGE HERITAGE MASON -v- PROBATE SPECIALIST LTD

Committal for contempt of courtCounty Court

Claim No M02BM532

IN THE COUNTY COURT
SITTING IN BIRMINGHAM

9 March 2026

Before:

Mr Recorder Adrian Jack

Between:

THE ESTATE OF THE LATE THOMAS GEORGE HERITAGE MASON
BY HIS EXECUTORS JOHN WILLIAM MASON AND JULIE MILLS

-v-

PROBATE SPECIALIST LTD

STEPHEN JAMESON

Judgment

Mr Recorder Adrian Jack

  1. On 2nd March 2026 I found Mr Jameson in contempt of court and adjourned the matter to 6th March 2026 for sentence and in order to give Mr Jameson a last opportunity to comply with the orders in respect of which he was in breach.  On 6th March 2026 I sentenced Mr Jameson to prison for twelve months and indicated that I would give my reasons in writing.  These are those reasons.
  2. There is little dispute about the facts.  Thomas George Heritage Mason died on 24th June 2021.  John William Mason and Julie Mills, the claimants, are his executors.  They appointed Probate Specialist Ltd (“PSL”), the first defendant, to manage the administration of the estate.  Mr Stephen Jameson, the second defendant, was and is the sole director of PSL.  PSL obtained a grant of probate in favour of the claimants on 5th January 2022.
  3. Sums in respect of the estate were initially received by Ms Mills in her capacity as executrix.  On 5th April 2022 she transferred £504,655.25 to PSL.  PSL proceeded to pay out some £73,014.33 for legitimate purposes including sums totalling £43,000 in respect of legacies.  The balance should have been £431,640.92.  On 13th October 2023 Mr Jameson showed the executors a bank statement showing or purporting to show that PSL held £390,706.34 of estate funds.  The shortfall is unexplained.  Since then Mr Jameson has provided no explanation for what occurred to the sums, beyond an assertion (not supported by independent evidence) that it had been misappropriated by a Mr Michael Smith.
  4. In March 2025 the executors became aware that PSL were facing a strike-off application at Companies House.  They instructed Emma Louise Allen, a solicitor and partner in the firm of Fishers Solicitors.  She spoke to Mr Jameson on 10th March 2025.  He said that the monies provided to him were a loan to the business (presumably of PSL) and that the money would be paid back “once it is all sorted”.  Ms Allen challenged him on this and pointed to correspondence in which he had promised to send monies to the beneficiaries of the estate.  Mr Jameson confirmed to Ms Allen that he still held the monies.  On 12th March 2025 Ms Allen and the executors formally requested that the estate funds be transferred to Ms Allen’s client account.  Mr Jameson did not comply and ceased to respond to Ms Allen.
  5. The police were subsequently informed of a potential fraud.  The police are apparently investigating but to date no charges have been brought.
  6. On 15th December 2025, Mr Recorder William Evans granted a proprietary asset freezing order in respect of the £431,640.92 transferred.  Paragraph 8 required the whereabouts of the assets to be disclosed within fourteen days, including details of all relevant bank accounts, including “the name and contact details of any individual or company to which any Propriety Assets have been transferred and the account number and sort code of any bank account to which any such transfer was made”.  Paragraph 9 required PSL and Mr Jameson within fourteen days to make and serve an affidavit confirming the details given pursuant to paragraph 8 and exhibit documents in his possession power custody or control showing the same.  The order had a penal notice.
  7. On 6th January 2026, the matter came before me on the return date of the freezing order.  Mr Jameson did not attend, nor was PSL represented.  I directed that the matter return to Court on 9th January 2026 in order that directions in respect of a contempt application might be given.  A summons in Form N601 was issued specifying the breaches of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order of 15th December 2026.
  8. On 9th January 2026, Mr Jameson appeared in person on his own behalf and on behalf of PSL.  I adjourned the contempt proceedings to 2nd March 2026 before me.  The order recited the respondents’ rights, including the right to legal representation and (in the case of Mr Jameson) legal aid.  On 19th January 2026 Karen Todner Ltd, solicitors, came on the record as acting for Mr Jameson in the contempt proceedings.
  9. On 16th February 2026 Mr Jameson made an affidavit.  It is not clear if the affidavit was made on behalf of PSL as well as himself.  The affidavit explained that he was the sole director of PSL, which he hoped to develop into an automated computer system business for managing probate and inheritance tax.  However, he faced difficulties resulting from his various disabilities, including Tourette’s syndrome, spinal issues, diabetes and severe eyesight problems caused by a diabetic coma in 2012.  Despite severe eyesight difficulties, he could nonetheless pass DVLA’s eyesight test and continues to drive.  The main effect of his eyesight problems is that he needs to read text white on black rather than black on white. 
  10. He said that when he originally received the order of 15th December 2025 he could not read it, because it was black on white.  However, he subsequently spoke to Ms Allen who read the order to him.  She also sent a copy of the order to him pasted into an email, so that he could read it as a white-on-black document.
  11. In his affidavit, he disclosed two Barclays Bank accounts with numbers and sort code.  He said they had balances of £59.00 and £85.27.  He did not disclose any bank statements.  He said PSL had two bank accounts, named “Probate Specialist Ltd” and “Stephen Jameson Probate Specialist Ltd”, but he did not say with which bank the accounts had been held or their account numbers.  He said he believed the accounts had been closed with nil balances, but gave no explanation for why he had this belief.  No bank statements for PSL were exhibited.
  12. Mr Jameson said that he formed PSL in 2020 with Michael Smith, who, he said, claimed to be an accountant.  “Michael had the bank card and online access; Michael made payments.  I did not regularly check the account and depended on trust with Michael.  I believe he rented an address in Marylebone in London somewhere as his office.  All I know of it was it was on the fifth floor of a building but I don’t know where.  The details were all on my computer which is now with the Police.”  The executors do not accept that Michael Smith exists, but I do not need to determine this issue.
  13. Mr Jameson accepted that Ms Mills had transferred £500,000 to his business account and that he had opened a trust account in the name of Stephen Jameson Probate Specialist Ltd.  It is common ground that some legitimate payments were made from that money.  He did not dispute that he was liable to account for £431,640.92, but said some further payments out reduced the sum outstanding to about £380,000 by October 2023.  He discovered the money was missing in August or September 2024.  He said: “In October 2024 I went to check on the balances and it showed nil balance.”  He said that he suspected that Michael Smith misappropriated the funds, but he had been unable to contact him since.” 
  14. The affidavit gave no details of when and where any transfers had been made or to whom.  It exhibited no documents whatsoever.
  15. The summons to commit Mr Jameson for contempt was returnable on 2nd March 2026.  Mr Jameson appeared by counsel.  He did not appear himself until after judgment had been given.  (I reconvened the Court briefly, but no further submissions were made.)  Counsel accepted that the executors had made out their case that Mr Jameson was in contempt of court.  After discussing counsel’s availability, I adjourned the question of sentence to 6th March 2026, so as to give Mr Jameson a last chance to purge his contempt.
  16. On 6th March 2026, Mr Jameson again appeared by counsel.  He did not attend himself.  Counsel submitted an unsworn draft affidavit which was to have been sworn by Mr Jameson.  Mr Jameson says in respect of his non-attendance on 2nd March 2026 that he had difficulty parking, that his health difficulties then made it difficult for him to walk from the car park to Court.  As he was walking, he collapsed and had to be helped onto a bench.  He said: “Following the hearing, I was approached by three women who were calling me names and filming me with their phones.”  He felt intimidated and lost control of his bladder.  He gives no explanation for why he did not telephone his solicitors when these difficulties became apparent.
  17. There is no independent evidence of these facts relating to 2nd March 2026 (and the affidavit is, as noted, not sworn).  Notwithstanding this, there was no application on 6th March 2026, either orally or formally, to reconsider the finding that Mr Jameson was guilty of contempt.  Instead Mr Jobling proceeded to mitigate on Mr Jameson’s behalf.
  18. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Jameson is in breach of the order.  He is the sole director of PSL and has control of the bank accounts of himself and of PSL.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he has not made any proper attempts to obtain the bank statements for the accounts and the details of any transfers of the monies and that his failures to comply with the order of 15th December 2025 are intentional and contumelious.
  19. As to sentence, in my judgment this is a serious breach of Mr Jameson’s duties under the order of 15th December 2025.  I note that on his own case he is a victim of Mr Smith’s fraud, so one would anticipate he would be taking steps himself to discover what has happened to the monies from the estate. 
  20. As to his attempt to purge his contempt, his unsworn affidavit says, “I contacted Barclays Bank on Tuesday 3rd March 2025 to request copies of my bank statements.  Due to my accounts are frozen and I do not currently have access to online banking, I am unable to retrieve them in this way.  So they instructed me to go to Calne to request them in person.  When I [arrived] at Calne Banking Hub, I was informed by staff that I had been misinformed and that I would have to wait for a Barclays representative to be there to order the statements, not print them.  I was told that I would need to return on another day when a Barclays representative was available to request the statements to be ordered and sent to me.  On 5th March 2026 I went into Calne Banking Hub and was told that there would not be [a] Barclays representative available until next Wednesday (11th).   Only then could I make a request for my bank statements to be posted.”
  21. There is no independent evidence of this and it is inherently improbable.  It would for example have been simple to obtain a note from the banking hub confirming the appointment on 11th March 2026.  I do not accept that Mr Jameson has purged his contempt or made any serious effort to do so.  I would have reached this conclusion, even if the affidavit had been sworn.
  22. I take into account Mr Jameson’s poor health and the fact that prison is likely to be a particular hardship to him.  However, given that this is a serious breach of the order of 15th December 2025 and that the sums involved are large, in my judgment a sentence of one year’s imprisonment is appropriate.  Mr Jobling submitted that I should suspend the sentence.  In my judgment, however, that is not appropriate.  It will of course be possible for Mr Jameson to apply to purge his contempt on complying with the order.  Suspending the sentence will give him no encouragement to do that and I decline to do so.
  23. Further, as part of my order, I ordered that by 1st May 2026 he provide various details and exhibit relevant documents showing what happened to the monies.  Whilst under the current order, he has an incentive to comply, in that he can then apply to purge his contempt, once he is released from his sentence (in probably about five months’ time), that incentive will disappear.  If he fails to comply with this new order, the matter can be referred to me (or another judge if I am not available), for directions to be given for further contempt proceedings.  If a finding of contempt is made, a sentence in excess of one year may well be in contemplation.