Chanel Limited v Charlotte Skeens

An adjournment may be justified where an unrepresented defendant faces a serious trial and the resulting disadvantage may not be attributable to her conduct. The court must balance the need to preserve the existing trial date and avoid prejudice to the claimant against the defendant’s ability to participate effectively, the complexity of the issues, the likely duration of delay and any interim protection available. A late application based on inadequate preparation or proposed new expert evidence will not ordinarily suffice where the timetable was reasonable and the evidence could have been obtained earlier.

Chanel sought an injunction enforcing confidentiality and non-disparagement obligations in a settlement agreement with its former employee, Charlotte Skeens. Interim injunctions had been granted and the matter was listed for an expedited four-day trial. On the first day of trial, Ms Skeens, appearing in person, sought an adjournment to obtain legal representation and psychiatric evidence concerning the agreement’s validity. The central issue was whether the trial should proceed despite her lack of representation, alleged preparation difficulties and the potential effect on her ability to address enforceability and European Convention issues.

1. Application granted. The trial was adjourned until the first convenient date after 27 January 2025.
2. The timetable set by Mould J was reasonable. The case materials were not extensive, and the outstanding disclosure and bundle issues could have been managed within the existing four- or five-day trial. The application for additional preparation time therefore failed.
3. The proposed psychiatric evidence was raised only on 1 December 2024. The suggested evidence that Ms Skeens was not of sound mind when signing the settlement agreement did not justify an adjournment. Any evidence from her former boyfriend might potentially be admitted later, but it provided no ground for postponing the trial.
4. The decisive consideration was representation. The judge could not determine whether Ms Skeens had understood that counsel would not conduct the trial. She might therefore have been left without representation through no fault of her own. She faced a serious trial potentially affecting freedom of expression, against a large corporation represented by solicitors and leading counsel.
5. Although she could conduct factual evidence and cross-examination herself, legal representation would materially assist the court on enforceability and European Convention of Human Rights issues. Her lack of qualification created a severe disadvantage.
6. Those factors were balanced against the public interest in maintaining the trial date, avoiding wasted court time and the prejudice and expense to Chanel. The likely relisting delay was approximately two months, and Chanel would remain protected by continuation of Mould J’s order. The court also took account of Ms Skeens’s assurance that she could secure funding for proper representation and would not rely on lack of representation again.

The judgment records that an interim injunction was granted on 8 August 2024 and that, on 22 August 2024, Mould J continued the injunctions, ordered an expedited trial and gave case-management directions. This judgment determined the defendant’s application to adjourn the listed trial.