Chanel Limited v Charlotte Skeens

The court granted interim injunctive relief by way of a prohibitory injunction and a mandatory order requiring the defendant to take down a TikTok video. The application was brought on the basis that the defendant had likely breached undertakings in a Consent Order and a New Settlement Agreement, including obligations not to disclose Confidential Information and not to make derogatory statements, subject to exceptions including protected disclosures under section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge applied the American Cyanamid principles alongside section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and concluded there was a serious question to be tried, that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and that the balance of convenience favoured interim relief.

The court rejected at this interim stage the defendant's contention that the TikTok post amounted to a protected disclosure under sections 43G and 43H of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding insufficient basis to conclude she reasonably believed widespread systemic allegations were substantially true and noting evidence suggesting possible personal gain. The court also ordered limited confidentiality measures for hearing papers and permitted service by email in the circumstances.

Background and parties: Chanel Limited, a luxury brand holding company, applied for interim injunctive relief against its former employee, Charlotte Skeens, following alleged publication on TikTok of confidential and derogatory material contrary to a First Settlement Agreement, a Consent Order dated 5 March 2025 and a New Settlement Agreement of the same date.

Nature of the application: An application for interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctions requiring the removal of a March TikTok video, restraint on further publication of its contents and related confidential information, limited redaction of hearing materials, and directions as to service.

Procedural posture: The Consent Order had stayed other proceedings save for enforcement of undertakings. The application was made on short notice; the defendant attended and filed evidence and submissions. The judge lifted the stay for this enforcement application.

Issues framed:

• Whether there was a serious issue to be tried that the defendant breached undertakings in the Consent Order and New Settlement Agreement.
• Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party.
• Where the balance of convenience lay, including Article 10 rights and section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requirements.
• Whether the March TikTok qualified as a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (sections 43A, 43F, 43G, 43H).
• Appropriate measures for confidentiality of court materials and the method of service.

Court's reasoning: The court applied the American Cyanamid principles and the section 12(3) HRA threshold (as explained in ABC v Telegraph Media Group Ltd). On the evidence the judge concluded there was a sufficient likelihood of success that undertakings had been breached and that harm to Chanel’s reputation and business from ongoing publication would be difficult to quantify, making damages an inadequate remedy. The court found that the defendant had not shown at this stage a reasonable belief in the substantial truth of the broad systemic allegations in the TikTok, and there was evidence suggesting publication for personal gain; alternative channels and prescribed persons were available. Balancing Article 10 against the claimant’s rights and the need to uphold court undertakings, the judge granted both prohibitory and mandatory relief, authorised limited redactions of hearing materials and permitted service by email given the defendant’s stated travel plans and prior acceptance of email contact.

Other findings: The judge noted the defendant’s arguments about lack of capacity when signing the agreement but observed contemporaneous communications and representation that undermined that contention; those points would require fuller examination at trial.

Interim application allowed. The court granted a prohibitory injunction restraining further publication of the March TikTok video and related confidential material and a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the video. The court concluded there was a serious issue to be tried, that damages would be inadequate to remedy the claimant’s loss, and that the balance of convenience and public policy in upholding undertakings to the court favoured interim relief. The court also authorised limited redactions of hearing materials and permitted service by email given the defendant’s circumstances.