KB-2025-003193 - [2025] EWHC 2642 (KB)

The claimant posts on social media under a pseudonym. I will refer to her as “AXB”.

The first defendant is a rapper and singer from London. He has had a number 1 single in the UK charts and a number 2 album in the UK charts. He has 1.3 million followers on Instagram and 2.5 million monthly listeners on Spotify. I will refer to him as “CYD”.

The second defendant is CYD’s mother. She is a school teacher. I will refer to her as “EYD”.

The third defendant is an online content creator. He has 169,000 subscribers on YouTube and 29,000 followers on Instagram. I will refer to him as “FZG”.

The claimant had some connection with the first defendant in the past, the nature of which is disputed. She says she was the first defendant’s business partner in a clothing line, although she also says she had “an assistant type role”. The first and second defendants deny that, and say that she acted as an assistant on an ad hoc basis, without any employment or partnership agreement. It is, however, common ground that the claimant’s connection with the first defendant ended acrimoniously in 2023.

I was told at the hearing on 7 October 2025 that the claimant had not been able to issue a Claim Form because she did not have addresses for the defendants. An unsealed Claim Form dated 30 September 2025 was in my papers. After the hearing, I was on 10 October given a Claim Form with a seal dated 30 September 2025 which had been received by the claimant’s solicitors on 10 October 2025. At the date of the hearing, and when the first draft of this judgment was written, the claimant had not produced any draft Particulars of Claim. She has, however, had three hearings on applications to the High Court, the third of which was listed before me, upon which I reserved the judgment which I now give. The claimant obtained from Farbey J, when acting in person, an interim injunction on 29 August 2025, supported by a short home-made witness statement dated 26 August 2025.

The return date was on 9 September 2025 before Hill J. By then, the claimant had instructed solicitors and Leading Counsel, and filed a second and more detailed witness statement, dated 8 September 2025, the day before the return date, although it was not responsive to any evidence from the defendants. None of the defendants is legally represented. The first defendant lives and works abroad at the moment. The second defendant appeared before Farbey J in person. The third defendant did not appear and was not represented. The second defendant presented to Hill J a home-made statement of evidence signed by her and by the first defendant, entitled “Defence Statement [EYD] & [CYD]” and told Hill J that she was “confused because nobody told me about the injunction until it was on social media”. The claimant’s Leading Counsel said that the defence document “needs to be put in proper form” and asked for an adjournment, which was granted.

The adjourned hearing came before me on 7 October 2025. The second defendant appeared before me in person, and she spoke also for her son, the first defendant. The third defendant did not appear and was not represented.