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

The claimant does not set out in the draft Claim Form the actual words of the statements attributed to any defendant and alleged to be libellous, and there were at the hearing no draft Particulars of Claim. I was therefore invited to understand her case from the evidence she has filed with the court.

She says in her first witness statement, dated 26 August 2025, that in the past few days, a social media account under the name “Mr Fake Flex” appeared on Instagram. She said she was not herself “behind the account”; she did not “make the page” and did not know who did, and she is “not an administrator of the account”. That is disputed by the first and second defendants.

Her first witness statement complains about “multiple videos” posted from “Friday 22^nd August” by the third defendant, and summarises, mostly without quotation, although occasionally with fragmentary words of quotation, what she says to be “completely false, damaging and defamatory statements which are categorically untrue and unbiased” from those unspecified videos. I am told that “unbiased” is a typo, presumably for “biased”. No video dated 22 August is referenced in the Claim Form, however. Her summary of the third defendant’s statements of which she complains is:

“a.

That I have been “stalking” [the first defendant] for 5 years.

b.

That I am completely nuts, a total psycho, a bunny boiler and similar to the stalker character in the Netflix TV show “Baby Reindeer”.

c.

He compared me to the pornstar, Bonnie Blue, who is known for sleeping with 1000 men in one day.

d.

Posted my home address and personal telephone number (I have had 3 people show up at this address and countless calls to my mobile where people harass me on the phone).

e.

He said I am the creator of the page, Mr.FakeFlex and that everything on the page is photoshop.

f.

He said that girls like me are nut jobs that deserve to die.

g.

He [that is, the third defendant] encouraged his own supporters, & [the first defendant’s] supporters… to attack me.”

She says that none of these accusations are true, content continues to be posted by the third defendant, and since then she has received offensive direct messages on her own social media page, including death threats (she does not say that any of these threats or messages came from any defendant). She felt obliged to move to a temporary location.

Her first witness statement also says that, shortly afterwards, the second defendant “began appearing on content creator’s platforms posing as [the first defendant’s] lawyer” although “I know her to be his mother”. In particular, it refers to statements by the second defendant on Video D which, again, are not identified verbatim but only by way of paraphrase, as follows:

“a number of untrue, defamatory statements … including:

a.

That I am behind the page [i.e. the Mr Fake Flex page].

b.

That I have stalked [the first defendant] for 5 years and need to be stopped by any means.

c.

That he has a Court Case against me.

d.

That I sent him nude photos.

e.

That I have created the page due to a personal vendetta.

f.

That I need psychiatric help and am mentally unwell.

g.

That I am a police informant (it is worth noting that in gang culture, being seen as a “snitch” is an acceptable reason to harm someone).

She also encouraged his fans to bully me.”

She says that she has received death threats which she attributes to viewers of Video D. She says that her mental health has been affected. She expresses concern about the damage to her reputation because “I am in the middle of a court case with my former employer”, in which “my reputation is of importance” (the former employer appears from other materials to be Chanel). She says what she describes as “superfans” of the first defendant have used information from the third defendant to find and contact her family members. She has heard a rumour that a price has been put on her head (although she does not say that has been done by any defendant).

In her second witness statement, having instructed her present solicitors and Leading Counsel, she puts more flesh on her case, and it is upon this second statement that submissions to me about her case were based by her Leading Counsel.

She says that she became aware on 21 August 2025 that she was named on the Mr Fake Flex Instagram profile which appeared to have been set up with the intention of making allegations about the first defendant. It had 30,000 followers and amassed over 20 million views in a matter of days. She then lists the defamatory allegations made by the Mr Fake Flex account against the first defendant. She says:

“I am not behind this account. I did not make the page. I do not know who did and I am not an administrator of the account. I had no foreknowledge that this account (or any account) would make these allegations”.

She says that three of the Mr Fake Flex account posts “leaked private conversations between myself and a third party, discussing [the first defendant]”. She messaged the account about this and had a reply “saying it was run by multiple people”. But she has no copy of this exchange because the Mr Fake Flex account was subsequently deleted.

Her second witness statement then has a somewhat confused account of the videos and other social media postings upon which she relies for her defamation and other claims against the defendants.

The first part of this evidence does clearly identify Video A, and it exhibits a 28 page transcript of it, indicating a run-time of over 42 minutes. Again, without full quotation, it paraphrases (sometimes with fragmentary and uncontextualized quotations of a few words) what it says are defamatory and untrue statements from this video, by reference to time-stamps on the transcript. The whole of the transcript is attributed to the third defendant. Neither the first defendant nor the second defendant appear on Video A, but the third defendant says on the transcript that he and another named person have spoken to the first defendant. The transcript (in a passage not specifically objected to in the second witness statement) says that the first defendant, speaking to the third defendant and the other source mentioned, “has pretty much said that this Mr Fake Flex is being run by an Instagram account called […], also known as [AXB]”. It then makes various derogatory statements about AXB and her conduct, including her dealings with the first defendant and what are said to be bogus claims made by her through the Mr Fake Flex account. She is said to have misconducted herself in various ways when working for the first defendant and had to leave, and has been stalking the first defendant, and is “crazy”. She is accused of being dishonest and of fabricating documents. The third defendant says, early on:

“Now, one thing I’ll tell you is when talking to rappers, take everything with a pinch of salt because when you’re a media, especially for myself, rappers will tell you exactly what they want. They’ll tell you want they want put out there. You know what I mean? And I expect nothing less. You know, it’s business at the end of the day.”

Video A also reports allegations against the claimant arising from a dispute between her and Chanel, apparently based on court papers to which he refers, which are not the subject matter of the present action.

The claimant’s second witness statement says that none of the claims are true.

The second statement then refers to and complains of subsequent YouTube videos (which she says have since been removed) and Instagram stories (which she says disappear after 24 hours) from the third defendant. It also complains of a Twitch livestream by four content creators including the third defendant (but no other defendant) also on 23 August. That is not one of the four videos identified in the Claim Form.

The second witness statement says “not a single thing that [the third defendant] says is true”. It says that other content creators (not party to these proceedings) have made videos based on the information provided in the third defendant’s video.

At this point, it becomes harder to reconcile the evidence given in the claimant’s second witness statement with the other three videos (Videos B, C and D) relied upon in the draft Claim Form.

The case against the second defendant in the claimant’s second witness statement is built on “BillyTheGoat’s livestream titled; “[CYD’s] LAWYER CALLS BILLY ON STREAM!!! [CYD] STREAM TOMORROW!!!” said to have been put out on 21 August 2025, whereas Video D is dated in the draft Claim Form 23 August 2025 and has a slightly different title. It does appear, however, that they are essentially the same discussion between the second defendant (wrongly described as the first defendant’s lawyer) and the live streamer (not a party to these proceedings) known as BillyTheGoat, which was uploaded on more than one occasion to various platforms and with a slightly different title. Although the claimant’s second witness statement paraphrases (at times with fragmentary quotations) this video, it does not exhibit a transcript. The links I was provided with were not working because they required credentials I was not given in time for the hearing. In any event, since the time stamps suggest it ran for nearly two hours, it would not have been appropriate, in the absence of a pleading, for me to watch the video myself and try and reconstruct the claimant’s case from it directly. The estimate for the whole interim hearing before me (including representations on behalf of the defendants) was two hours, and the time estimate for my pre-reading in the claimant’s skeleton argument was 1 hour 30 minutes.

The paraphrase of what the second defendant said to BillyTheGoat in this video is in paragraph 35 of the claimant’s second witness statement, broken down into a number of statements, all said to be false, under sub-paragraphs a. to j. They include specific allegations of misconduct by the claimant in relation to the first defendant’s clothing brand, stalking, dealings with Chanel and others referred to as scams, sometimes leading to a payoff in her favour, changing lawyers and delaying substantive resolution of legal proceedings, fabricating messages and audio on social media, running or controlling the Mr Fake Flex page, surreptitious photography of the first defendant’s family (his child and the child’s mother), harassment through social media, and manipulation of courts. delaying cases to avoid scrutiny.

The case against the first defendant in the claimant’s second witness statement is based on an eight minute appearance by the first defendant on BillyTheGoat’s livestream on 22 August 2025. Again, no transcript is exhibited, but there is in paragraph 41 a paraphrase, with fragmentary quotations, of allegations against the claimant by the first defendant which are complained of, by reference to time stamps. The video link was again not working for me because of a lack of credentials. Five allegations are set out. They include stalking the third defendant, tricking a solicitor in the music industry, photography of the previously mentioned child and that child’s mother, being a manipulator, and the circumstances in which the first defendant “let her go”. The claimant says in her witness statement that none of the statements complained of are true. None of the statements complained of is quoted in full.

The claimant followed up her second witness statement with a third witness statement dated 25 September 2025 and, on the eve of the hearing before me, with a fourth witness statement, dated 6 October 2025.