KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Chanel Limited | Claimant/Applicant | |
- and - | ||
Charlotte Skeens | Defendant/Respondent |
____________________
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Sweeting:
a. She claims she was still experiencing a miscarriage when she signed it.
b. She also cited "a few other reasons" for believing it was not valid, although these are not specified in detail.
c. She stated she was suffering from severe physical and emotional distress at the time.
d. She felt she was not in a fit state to properly understand, assess, or consent to the terms of the agreement due to the miscarriage and distress.
e. In a later communication, she explicitly stated she lacked capacity to make a rational decision due to her severe physical and emotional distress, which she claimed her doctor or Approved Mental Health Professional would confirm.
Decision on Protected Disclosure
Decision on Interim Injunctive Relief
Decision on Mandatory Injunction
Decision on Confidentiality of Hearing Papers
Service
a. Ms Skeens, in her email of 10 March 2025 to Chanel's solicitors, Mishcon de Reya LLP, stated that "Email correspondence is fine as I will be going to the Middle East soon for business/ Eid. Therefore, I do not presently require any future service in person". This indicates a clear acceptance of email as a sufficient method of communication and service.
b. As noted by Ms Tan in her witness statement, Ms Skeens is about to travel abroad, although the precise dates are unknown. Permitting email service would therefore avoid the practical difficulties and potential delays associated with attempting personal service on Ms Skeens, especially given her imminent departure from the jurisdiction.
c. In light of Ms Skeens's stated preference for email communication and her impending travel, which would likely complicate personal service, I am satisfied that permitting service of the Application Notice and supporting evidence by email to the address provided by Miss Skeens is appropriate and constitutes good service in these specific circumstances.
d. This permission extends to the service of any order made pursuant to this application, unless the Court directs otherwise in respect of any mandatory injunctions requiring personal action by Ms Skeens, a matter which can be revisited if necessary.
Conclusion
END