Brand & Anor v Szilvia (aka Sylvie) Berki
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HON MRS JUSTICE CARR DBE
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerns an application by the Claimants to continue an anti-harassment injunction against the Defendant, a professional masseuse. Following a failed massage session, the Defendant allegedly harassed the Claimants through emails, media approaches, and social media posts. The court granted the continuation of the injunction, finding it likely that the Claimants would establish harassment at trial. The Defendant's application for a general stay of proceedings and disclosure requests were denied, with the court balancing the Claimants' Article 8 rights and the Defendant's Article 10 rights to freedom of expression.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Carr :
Introduction
This is the hearing of an application dated 19 th August 2014 by the Claimants seeking continuation of an anti-harassment injunction granted on an urgent basis against the Defendant by Lewis J on 12 th August 2014. The injunction was made following a hearing at which the Defendant attended in person but on short (and abridged) notice. A Claim Form has since been issued, Particulars of Claim have been served and an Acknowledgment of Service indicating an intention to defend all of the claim has been filed. This application proceeds by way of complete re-hearing, and the Defendant has had and taken advantage of the opportunity to serve a full witness statement for such purpose (dated 28 th August 2014).
The First Claimant is a well-known comedian and actor. The Second Claimant is a journalist and a UNICEF UK Ambassador in which role she promotes the work of the charity UNICEF within the UK. They have at all material times been in a personal relationship together. The Defendant at all material times held herself out as a professional, qualified masseuse.
In June 2014 the Second Claimant arranged a professional massage from the Defendant as a birthday present for the First Claimant. There was a meeting between the Claimants and the Defendant at the Second Claimant’s house in Oxfordshire on 7 th June 2014. There is a dispute as to what occurred at that meeting. The Claimants say that the First Claimant was uneasy with the Defendant and did not wish to proceed with the massage. The position was uncomfortable but not unfriendly. The Defendant on the other hand alleges that she was the victim of wrongful and criminal conduct. The Claimants deny any such conduct. The Defendant’s services as a masseuse were not in the event taken up. She was driven home and paid her agreed fee by the Claimants. Their case is that since then she has unlawfully harassed them and will continue to do so absent the imposition of injunctive relief.
Recently, on 5 th September 2014, the Defendant issued an application for a general stay and discharge from the interim injunction. She also sought two calendar months to update her medico-legal evidence, together with disclosure of internal CCTV tapes from the Second Claimant’s house and various third party disclosure orders against numerous third parties.
At the commencement of the hearing the Claimants sought a direction pursuant to CPR 39.2 that the full hearing should be in private, as was th