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

The claimant has, since instructing solicitors and Counsel, produced a draft Claim Form, although there was at the hearing before me no immediate prospect of Particulars of Claim (it was suggested that they might be available after 14 days, or perhaps 7 days). She has not been allowed to issue the Claim Form because she has not found out the addresses of any of the defendants. The first and second defendants’ defence statement says that the first defendant has been openly performing and recording in Dubai for almost two years. The third defendant appears from the evidence to be based in London. The second defendant does not object to service on her by email and has been able to attend the hearings in London of which she was notified. The claimant obtained from Farbey J an order for service on all defendants of the injunction application papers and order by email. She also obtained from Hill J an order for service of the Claim Form and Hill J’s order by email but that did not overcome the difficulty she had in issuing a Claim Form which had no defendant addresses on it. Since the hearing before me, the claimant has filed evidence from her solicitor saying “Whilst it is theoretically possible that the Claimant could employ the services of a private investigator or other location tracking services, she has not means to do so”. I urged the claimant through her Leading Counsel to make an application for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction playing closer attention to the principles engaged by CPR 6.36 and 6.37 (particularly 6.37(1)(c), which says that an application for permission to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction must set out the defendant’s address or, if not known, in what place the defendant is, or is likely to be found). I have, since the hearing, been informed that this has been put in hand.

The claimant’s draft Claim Form gives the following brief details of her claim:

“The Claimant’s claim is for:

(1)

Damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, for libel contained in a series of videos and posts on social media falsely alleging that the Claimant was behind the @MrFakeFlex account on Instagram, that she had dishonestly fabricated evidence of the First Defendant’s wrongdoing on the @MrFakeFlex account and that she was an obsessive and mentally ill stalker who had stalked the First Defendant for years, including, but not limited to:

(a)

A video published on 23 August 2025 on YouTube on the FZG account entitled “[CYD] Says He Has A Stalker That’s Making False Screenshots….He Sent Me All His Proof”;

(b)

A video published on 25 August 2025 on YouTube on the Billythegoat Live account entitled “[CYD] Calls Billy and CRASHES OUT on STREAM”;

(c)

A video published on 25 August 2025 on YouTube on the Billythegoat Live account entitled “Discussing the [CYD] Interview with TrapLoreRoss, [FZG] and Walkz”;

(d)

A video published on 23 August 2025 on Twitch on the Billythegoat Live account entitled “[CYD’s] LAWYER CALLS BILLY ON LIVESTREAM!!!!”.

(2)

Damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages for harassment contrary to s.1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in respect of the aforementioned publications.

(3)

Damages, including aggravated damages and exemplary damages, for misuse of private information, in respect of the Claimant’s personal information and private correspondence, published in the aforementioned publications.

(4)

An injunction restraining the Defendants and each of them, whether by themselves, their employees or otherwise, from further publishing or causing to be published the same or any similar defamatory allegations about the Claimant and from further publishing the Claimant’s personal information and private correspondence.”

The case is to be particularly based, therefore, on these four videos (although it is said to be “including but not limited to” those videos, other social media posts being mentioned in non-specific terms). I will refer to the four videos as Video A, Video B, Video C and Video D respectively.

Video A was, according to the Claim Form, put out by the third defendant. Videos B, C and D were put out by “Billythegoat”, who is not a defendant, but Videos B and C refer to things said by the first defendant, and Video D refers to things said by the second defendant (although she is not, and has never claimed to be, her son’s lawyer; she is, as I have mentioned, a school teacher who, as a litigant in person, has spoken in these court proceedings on his behalf in his absence).