Simon Lyons appeared at Southwark Crown Court on 23 April 2026 accused of breaching a 2026 injunction by sending thousands of emails between January 2026 and March 2026 to his former business partner and the partner's wife
On 23 April 2026 Simon Lyons, aged 45, attended Southwark Crown Court to answer allegations that he ignored a court order and contacted his former business partner and the partner’s spouse. Lyons, who represents himself in court, stood in casual attire as proceedings began.
The hearing followed a High Court injunction issued in 2026 under the Protection from Harassment Act, and the allegations concern thousands of emails sent between January 2026 and March 2026. This article summarises the facts presented in court and the legal context surrounding the charges.
According to the prosecution, the correspondence targeted Farid Alizadeh, also 45, and his wife, Natasha Alizadeh, 46. The injunction at the centre of the case prohibits Lyons from harassing the couple; an injunction is a court order preventing certain actions and was granted in 2026.
Lyons has previously pleaded not guilty to two counts alleging he breached that order. If convicted of breaching an injunction, the defendant faces a maximum custodial sentence of up to five years, a point emphasised by court documents.
Background of the business relationship
Lyons and Farid Alizadeh co-founded Enstar Capital Ltd in 2004 and over the years built a portfolio of property projects said to exceed £100 million in value. Their work included high-value urban conversions, notably a project in 2015 converting former office space into a luxury residential block opposite the Royal Courts of Justice in central London valued at about £20 million. The professional partnership produced significant developments but later fractured, giving rise to legal disputes that culminated in the 2026 injunction. The history of the business is central to understanding the tensions now playing out in court.
Allegations, charges and current court status
The core accusation is that Lyons sent a large volume of unsolicited messages to the Alizadehs between January 2026 and March 2026, in breach of the earlier injunction. At the hearing Lyons was self-represented and remains on bail, with a condition that he must not contact Mr and Mrs Alizadeh either directly or indirectly. The defence has denied the two counts. The scheduled trial date is set for 24 April 2028, reflecting the complex nature of the case and the time needed to assemble evidence and legal argument. Observers note the extended timetable is not unusual in matters involving extensive electronic records.
Legal timeline
Key milestones are straightforward: the partnership began in 2004, a notable conversion project completed in 2015, a High Court injunction was issued in 2026, the alleged email campaign occurred between January 2026 and March 2026, and the latest court appearance was on 23 April 2026. The trial is listed for 24 April 2028. Understanding this chronology helps place the allegations and the legal strategy into context, particularly how evidence of electronic communications will be handled during pre-trial processes.
Possible legal outcomes and considerations
If the prosecution proves that Lyons knowingly contravened a valid High Court injunction, the court could consider sentences up to five years’ imprisonment. However, judges will weigh factors such as intent, the content of the messages, and any mitigating circumstances. The court must determine whether the messages amounted to harassment as defined by the Protection from Harassment Act, and whether Lyons’ actions were deliberate contraventions. The handling of digital evidence, including volume and frequency of emails, will play a crucial role in that assessment.
Personal profile and public interest
Details disclosed in court sketch a picture of Lyons’ background: he attended Clifton College in Bristol and currently resides in an upscale apartment on Grosvenor Crescent, close to Buckingham Palace. Such biographical notes tend to draw public attention in high-profile civil and criminal proceedings, but they do not affect the legal standards applied. The business achievements of Enstar Capital Ltd and the prominence of its developments contribute to media interest in the dispute between former partners.
As the case progresses towards the listed trial date, further hearings and disclosure will clarify the precise nature of the alleged contacts and the evidence the prosecution will present. For now, the court record shows an ongoing legal battle over alleged breaches of a court injunction that raises broader questions about post‑partnership disputes, the use of electronic communication in harassment cases, and how the courts balance protection orders with procedural fairness. Observers will watch the pre-trial phases closely in the months and years ahead.
