Chanel Ltd v Skeens [2025] EWHC 619 (KB) (14 March 2025)

Chanel Ltd v Skeens [2025] EWHC 619 (KB) (14 March 2025)

The court found that Chanel demonstrated a likelihood of success at trial in establishing that Ms Skeens breached undertakings in the Consent Order by posting confidential and derogatory information on TikTok. The disclosure did not meet the statutory requirements for protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm to Chanel justified the grant of interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 619 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Chanel Limited; Defendant/respondent: Charlotte Skeens
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunctive Relief / Interim Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interim prohibitory and mandatory injunction granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Confidentiality, Protected Disclosure, Freedom of Expression, Settlement Agreements
Employment Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Confidentiality Protected Disclosure Freedom of Expression Settlement Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chanel Limited

Claimant/applicant

Charlotte Skeens

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunctive Relief / Interim Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached undertakings in a Consent Order and Settlement Agreement by posting confidential and/or derogatory information on social media
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's disclosure qualifies as a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain further publication and require removal of the material

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Chanel demonstrated a likelihood of success at trial in establishing that Ms Skeens breached undertakings in the Consent Order by posting confidential and derogatory information on TikTok. The disclosure did not meet the statutory requirements for protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm to Chanel justified the grant of interim prohibitory and mandatory injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Interim prohibitory and mandatory injunction granted

Orders

  • Ms Skeens is required to take down the March TikTok video.
  • Ms Skeens is restrained from further publication of its contents or other confidential information concerning Chanel.