Prominent British rapper faces Defamation and Harassment claim

Defamation – Harassment – Misuse of private information – Interim injunction

Case: AXB v CYD [2025] EWHC 2642 (KB)

Griffiths J delivered judgment in a matter which found itself in the MAC List concerning claims for libel, harassment, and misuse of private information against a chart-topping British rapper.

Described in the judgment as “a rapper and singer from London. He has had a number 1 single in the UK charts and a number 2 album in the UK charts. He has 1.3 million followers on Instagram and 2.5 million monthly listeners on Spotify” —a description sufficiently distinctive that readers may recognise the profile, though the court’s anonymity order prevents identification.

The claimant, anonymised as AXB pursued injunctive relief against the chart-topping British rapper (CYD), his mother (EYD), and a YouTuber (FZG).

AXB alleged that she had previously worked with CYD in some business capacity [5] and that, following an acrimonious end to their association, the defendants falsely accused her online of being behind an Instagram account, @MrFakeFlex, which had published damaging allegations about CYD. She claimed the defendants’ statements portrayed her as (i) an obsessive and mentally ill stalker akin to ‘Baby Reindeer’, and (ii) the creator of falsified social media content.

She alleged that the defendants had defamed her, engaged in a course of conduct amounting to harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and misused her private information.

The court refused to grant interim injunctions for both the libel and harassment claims. Griffiths J held that AXB was not likely to succeed at trial, as there was a real possibility that the core allegations might prove to be true and issues of credibility were central [54–60, 57]. There was also no evidence of any threat or course of harassing conduct by the defendants between now and trial that would justify injunctive relief [75].

However, the judge granted a limited interim injunction against the third defendant (FZG) for misuse of private information, restraining further publication of AXB’s home address, phone number, child’s images, and private communications [66–68].

Finally, the court made anonymity and access restrictions to protect AXB’s identity, noting evidence that she had received death threats and faced an exceptional level of online abuse, making such measures strictly necessary to achieve justice [80]

Procedurally, the case underscores the importance of issuing and pleading claims properly when seeking injunctive relief. The claimant’s evidential confusion and absence of Particulars of Claim weakened her position in securing the entirety of what she initially had sought.

If you believe you are being harassed/defamed or are defending a claim brought against you, we recommend seeking advice without delay.

For a confidential consultation, please contact us on 0113 216 5507 or submit an enquiry through our online contact form. We act for clients nationally so long as you are based in England or Wales.