Nikoletta Read v Claudio di Giovanni & Ors

Nikoletta Read v Claudio di Giovanni & Ors

The claimant failed to meet the threshold for interim injunctive relief under s12(3) HRA for misuse of private information, libel, malicious falsehood, and harassment due to insufficient evidence of serious harm, lack of urgency, and delay. The bulk of any damage had already occurred, and there was no real risk of further harm pending trial. Therefore, the application for an interim injunction was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Nikolette Read; First Defendant: Claudio De Giovanni; Second Defendant: Alessandro Natalizio; Third Defendant: Persons unknown using WhatsApp number +44 7923 422679; Fourth Defendant: Persons unknown using WhatsApp number +44 7508 193472; Fifth Defendant: Persons unknown responsible for https://nikoleread.info/
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 September 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Libel, Misuse of Private Information, Malicious Falsehood, Harassment, Delay, Threshold for Injunctive Relief
Defamation Privacy Harassment Malicious Falsehood Interim Injunctions Libel Misuse of Private Information Delay +1 more

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 8 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nikolette Read

Claimant

Claudio De Giovanni

First Defendant

Alessandro Natalizio

Second Defendant

Persons unknown using WhatsApp number +44 7923 422679

Third Defendant

Persons unknown using WhatsApp number +44 7508 193472

Fourth Defendant

Persons unknown responsible for https://nikoleread.info/

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is likely to establish entitlement to an interim injunction restraining publication of defamatory/private material, operation of the website, and financial demands/threats
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for injunctive relief under s12(3) HRA is met for misuse of private information, libel, malicious falsehood, and harassment
  3. 3 Whether delay bars injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to meet the threshold for interim injunctive relief under s12(3) HRA for misuse of private information, libel, malicious falsehood, and harassment due to insufficient evidence of serious harm, lack of urgency, and delay. The bulk of any damage had already occurred, and there was no real risk of further harm pending trial. Therefore, the application for an interim injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused