In Sledziewski & Anor v Persons Unknown & Anor [2024] EWHC 1955 (KB), Aidan Eardley KC, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, handed down an excoriating judgment refusing an application for an interim injunction in harassment.
The facts of the case concerned the type of social media pile-on that we see very frequently. It arose from a YouTuber (known as Chapona or Chapona Bicyclette), who films himself cycling and uploads videos of ‘close passes’ by motorists and motorists using their mobile phones while driving.
Chapona had uploaded a video of an “extremely” close pass by a van owned by Cornices Centre Limited. The van’s livery showed the company name and logo. Chapona’s video included ‘Cornices Centre’ in the text description below the video. The inclusion in the description meant that the video became ‘indexed’, and appeared in Google searches for the company. That prompted Cornices Centre to write to Chapona complaining of trade mark infringement, which in turn prompted Chapona to upload a second video, naming Zdzislaw Sledzieski (Cornices Centre’s director) and explaining that rather than addressing the company’s standard of driving, Cornices Centre had instead chosen to threaten him with legal action.
Daniel Shensmith, a barrister and YouTuber who goes by ‘BlackBeltBarrister’, became aware of the story, and published his own video covering these events and commenting on them. He said that, in his opinion, the trade mark infringement allegation was meritless, and Chapona may have his own claim for unjustified threats of trade mark infringement (a cause of action in its own right).
Sledzieski and Cornices Centre (‘the Claimants’) then instructed solicitors, who wrote to each of Chapona and Shensmith. When writing to Chapona, the Claimants resiled from their threat of trade mark infringement proceedings, but claimed that Chapona had harassed the Claimants by encouraging a social media pile on. When writing to Shensmith, the Claimants acknowledged that the trade mark infringement threat had been inappropriate and meritless, but asserted a claim in harassment against Shensmith himself – on the basis Shensmith had conspired with Chapona to cause a pile on by their social media followers (described as ‘end users’ in the judgment).
Neither Chapona or Shensmith offered the remedies sought and proceedings followed. Despite previously abandoning the claim for trade mark infringement, the Claimants’ Particulars of Claim bizarrely still sought an injunction preventing infringement of an EU trade mark, and an account of profit for any infringement found.
At the same time as filing the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, the Claimants also filed an application for an interim injunction, seeking to have the various videos taken offline pending trial. Shensmith gave an undertaking to remove the videos pending trial – without admission of liability. Chapona did not give an undertaking, and the application proceeded to a hearing (which Chapona did not attend).
As the judgment explains in detail, the Claimants’ case for harassment generally (and for an interim injunction) relied on (i) three YouTube posts and two emails from Chapona, said to be ‘targeted’ at the Claimants, and (ii) an alleged conspiracy between Shensmith and Chapona to cause third parties (their social media followers or ‘end users’) to oppressively target the claimants (in the ‘pile on’).
In dismissing the application, the Judge held that “On present evidence, the First Claimant is unlikely to obtain an injunction at trial on the grounds of harassment”. The main thrust of the rejection of the application was that without very clear evidence of incitement, an individual would be highly unlikely to be liable for the harassing or abusive conduct of unrelated third parties. It is clear from the judgment that there was a complete lack of legal merit in the application.
The claim received renewed publicity on 11 June 2025 when Shensmith uploaded a video to his YouTube channel saying that the Claimants had applied to discontinue their case on 2 June 2025, and explaining the consequences of discontinuance (primarily, that the party discontinuing their claim is normally ordered to pay the other parties’ costs). Shensmith made various criticisms of the Claimants’ conduct, including suggesting that the claim was a SLAPP (a strategic lawsuit against public participation) designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Claimants for their behaviour and conduct.
Comment
These proceedings are a case study in why, when understandably vexed by social media content, advice from experienced media lawyers is invaluable. The Claimants in this case have erred at every stage: threatening intellectual property proceedings, abandoning that threat but (perhaps by accident) including it in the subsequent proceedings, applying for a baseless interim injunction, and eventually abandoning their claim and presumably ending up responsible for both their and the defendants’ costs of both the application and the proceedings generally. It will have been an extremely expensive exercise for the Claimants.
The whole episode has already prompted one new video from Shensmith, and he says he intends to publish more: the Claimants problems flowing from the alleged poor driving of one employee, are not yet over, and seem entirely self-inflicted. The judgment, renewed content, and online commentary about this matter is sure to leave a lasting mark on Cornices Centre’s online profile far more detrimental than the initial video.
This post originally appeared on the Brett Wilson Media and Communications blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks
Leave a Reply