This is a case (Sledziewski and another v Persons unknown going by Chapona (also known as Chapona Bicyclette) and another [2024] EWHC 1955 (KB)) of a civil action for injunctive relief, on grounds of harassment by publication involving multiple parties (hopefully not too confusing). It concerns a cycling video whereby a cyclist uploaded a video filmed with their helmet-mounted camera showing dangerous or inconsiderate driving, together with commentary shaming the driver for the lack of concern for the cyclist.
Cast List for ease of reference:-
1. The first claimant, a British citizen of Polish descent, Sledziewski, was the Managing Director of the second claimant company.
2. The second claimant company is Cornices Centre Ltd.
3. The first defendant operated a YouTube channel called 'Chapona Bicyclette'.
4. The second defendant, who operated a YouTube channel call 'Black Belt Barrister'.
Background
On 10 November 2023, a van belonging to the Second Claimant overtook a cyclist on the Victoria Embankment in London, passing extremely close to the cyclist. The driver (who was not the First Claimant) has since been dealt with by the police. The cyclist was the First Defendant and he was filming at the time. Later that day he uploaded a video of the incident to his YouTube channel and titled it “Cornices Centre…Chelsea Embankment Close Pass Van”. Beneath it he wrote, “Cornices Centre? I don't think I'll be bothering with any fancy plaster work from yourselves. Wouldn't want a road death on my conscience if one happened whilst you were out driving. Which seems entirely plausible”.
The First Defendant also emailed the Second Claimant sharing the link to the First Post and saying “This is an absolutely appalling standard of driving, and your driver needs retraining…Please take appropriate action before he runs someone over”.
On 20 December 2023, the First Claimant emailed the First Defendant, in polite terms, asking him to remove the Second Claimant's name “from your video content and descriptions”. His concern seems to have been that, because the First Defendant had used the words “Cornices Centre” in the First Post and in the URL for the First Post, people who googled “Cornices Centre” were being shown links to the First Post which implicitly suggested that the Second Claimant employs dangerous van drivers. The First Claimant's email mentioned the damage to the Second Claimant's reputation but it was not framed as a complaint about defamation; it was framed as a complaint of trademark infringement.
There then followed further Youtube posts, and the Trade Marks Act 1994 was mentioned as a potential cause of action for someone who unjustifiably threatens legal action for trade mark infringement which centres around the mention of Cornices Centre Ltd. There then followed further communications between the parties and a letter of claim was sent from the claimant to the first defendant 19 January 2024 and on 26 January 2024 a letter from claimant to second defendant.
There was a third post on YouTube on 28 January 2024, this resulted in further third party comments being made on YouTube and at the end of January 2024 the first defendant made comments on Twitter/X where he referred to having had 290,00 views of his tweet which included the link to the video.
For further information about the case can be found here Sledziewski and another v Persons unknown going by Chapona (also known as Chapona Bicyclette) and another [2024] EWHC 1955 (KB)
Key Legal Findings
The conduct of the Second Defendant and End-Users is unlikely to be attributed to the First Defendant under the Protection from Harassment Act (PfHA) s7(3A) as there is insufficient evidence of the First Defendant aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring their conduct.
The First Defendant's three Posts on YouTube and two emails to the First Claimant are unlikely to amount to harassment, as the Posts are likely to be regarded as a form of citizen journalism engaging the principles of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The First Defendant's emails threatening legal action for trademark infringement, though unreasonable in some respects, do not reach the level of unjustified threats that would constitute harassment under the PfHA.
Material Facts
The First Defendant, who operates a cycling YouTube channel, uploaded a video showing a van belonging to the Second Claimant (company) overtaking a cyclist dangerously close, and made comments criticizing the company's driving standards.
The First Claimant, managing director of the Second Claimant company, emailed the First Defendant requesting removal of the company's name from the video for trademark infringement.
The First Defendant subsequently identified the First Claimant by name in an updated post and accused him of being the van driver.
The First Defendant sent emails to the First Claimant threatening legal action for unjustified threats of trademark infringement and demanding £10,000 in compensation.
The Second Defendant, a barrister with a YouTube channel, made videos commenting on the legal issues raised by the First Defendant's case.
Third-party "End-Users" posted abusive comments about the Claimants on the Defendants' YouTube channels and directly to the Second Claimant's website.
The Law
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 (freedom of expression)
Trade Marks Act 1994, sections 21 and 21A (unjustified threats of trademark infringement proceedings)
Case law on harassment by publication, including Thomas v News Group Newspapers [2002] EMLR 4, Trimingham v Associated Newspapers [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB), and Sube v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EMLR 25 (containing reference to Thomas and Trimingham)
Submissions of the Parties
The First Claimant sought an interim injunction against the First Defendant for harassment, arguing that the First Defendant's conduct, including his Posts, emails, and the conduct of the Second Defendant and End-Users (attributed to the First Defendant under PfHA s7(3A)), amounted to harassment.
The First Defendant did not appear or make submissions.
Court Rationale
The Second Defendant's videos were likely made independently, based on the legal issues raised by the First Defendant's case, rather than at the First Defendant's encouragement or assistance.
The End-User comments, while possibly foreseeable, were not actively encouraged or facilitated by the First Defendant, and could not be attributed to him under PfHA s7(3A).
The First Defendant's Posts were likely to be regarded as citizen journalism engaging Article 10 rights, and there was no evidence of a conscious or negligent abuse of press freedom that would justify a finding of harassment.
The First Defendant's emails, while unreasonable in mentioning £10,000 in damages, did not reach the level of unjustified threats seen in cases establishing harassment by correspondence.
The Decision
The court refused to grant an interim injunction against the First Defendant, as it was unlikely that the First Claimant would obtain a final injunction at trial on the grounds of harassment.
PW-LA deal with various applications from injunctive relief when it becomes necessary to protect a party, their reputation and property. If you are unsure about whether injunctive relief is appropriate we can advise you on next best steps and strategies for a resolution - legal proceedings are a last resort, but, sometimes are unavoidable.
Comments