UK: Online conspiracy theorist has defence struck out after four failed attempts at compliance

Rzucek v Vinnicombe [2025] EWHC 403 (KB)

“The law does not exempt litigants in person from compliance with the rules”: In a defamation and harassment case brought by Franklin William Rzucek against Alan Vinnicombe, Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre ruled that both the defence and the Defendant's counterclaim for harassment should be struck out due to multiple procedural failings. The Defendant’s application for security for costs was also dismissed. 

The background

The case centered around content disseminated by the Defendant on his YouTube channel, "Armchair Detective BLUE", which allegedly included defamatory statements and conspiracy theories related to the tragic Watts family murder case, which involved the murder of Mrs Shannan Watts, the Claimant’s sister, and her children. 

Since the murders, the Defendant had reportedly “propagated conspiracy theories” which suggested that the Claimant and his family were involved in the deaths and that there was a cover-up in relation to the same. 

The Claimant, a US citizen, accordingly initiated defamation and harassment proceedings in the English courts against the Defendant, a UK citizen. The Claimant contended that the conspiracy theories were “highly defamatory” and “falsely implicate[d] Mr Rzucek and his family in the deaths of his sister and children”, as well as amounting to harassment of him under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.  The claim also related to allegedly defamatory statements made by the Defendant suggesting that the Claimant had engaged in fraudulent activities related to a crowdfunding campaign to fund the claim. 

The Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the Claimant had “coordinated a campaign of harassment online and in person against him”. However, the inadequacy of the Defendant’s pleaded defence resulted in multiple Unless Orders being issued by the court which provided him with multiple opportunities to rectify the various deficiencies. By the fourth attempt, prompted by an Unless Order described by the court as “the last chance saloon”, the Defendant had still not managed to provide a compliant defence. The Judge described the latest re-amended defence as “a mishmash of legal wording and vague assertions of unspecified ‘evidence’ or alternative facts”, including references to the truth and honest opinion defences under the Defamation Act 2013 without engaging with the fact that the truth of published information is not determinative in a harassment claim. 

As a result, the Claimant applied to strike out the defence and counterclaim (the latter of which was only two sentences in an application form). 

The decision

The Claimant argued that the Defendant's defence was inadequate, failing to address the allegations properly and relying on irrelevant legal assertions. The Defendant accepted that his defence was non-compliant but cited difficulties in preparing a technically compliant defence as an unrepresented layperson and due to dyslexia, maintaining that his inability to secure legal advice hindered his compliance with procedural rules (hence his application for security for costs). 

Irrespective of these factors, the court emphasised the importance of procedural compliance to ensure fairness in proceedings and held that the defence failed to meet the requirements for a compliant defence set out in CPR r.16.5 and CPR Practice Direction 53B. The defence's vague assertions and lack of clarity rendered it non-compliant, despite the fact that the Defendant was given multiple opportunities to remedy it by way of multiple Unless Orders, justifying its strike out under CPR r.3.4(2). The Defendant's counterclaim was similarly deficient, lacking specificity and reasonable grounds, leading to its dismissal, and the Judge held that its timing (late in the proceedings) was “a vain attempt to muddy the waters and stall proceedings in the absence of a procedurally compliant defence to the claim”.

Regarding the application for security for costs, the court considered the Claimant's impecuniosity and the potential stifling effect on the claim. While acknowledging the Defendant's financial constraints, the court found the timing of the application problematic, as it was made late in the proceedings and after multiple non-compliant defences were submitted. The court concluded that granting security for costs at this stage would be unjust, given the procedural history and the likely success of the claim were it to continue. The Judge also noted that while the Defendant was unrepresented at the hearing, he was previously represented by solicitors, and still delayed over a year in bringing his application. 

Takeaways

This case has been described as a “landmark ruling” which, according to the Claimant’s solicitors, was the first UK case to result in the shutting down of a YouTube channel for harassment. However, as the defence and counterclaim were struck out, ultimately there was no clear finding on whether the conduct amounted to harassment. Therefore, the extent to which this case can be relied upon as precedent concerning online harassment is limited, though it is certainly helpful that the Judge referred to the high likelihood that the claim would have succeeded were it to proceed to trial. 

Nevertheless, the case ought to be a warning to those disseminating defamatory and/or harassing content on social media of the adverse consequences if perpetrators are not prepared or able to defend their comments. 

While the Judge made it clear that she did “not underestimate the challenges for a litigant in person … to engage with complex litigation”, she nevertheless found that “the law does not exempt litigants in person from compliance with the rules”. Accordingly, the case highlights the possibility of striking out non-compliant pleadings by litigants in person – but in this case it was only after he had filed his fourth non-compliant defence following two Unless Orders. 

Therefore, while the case highlights the importance of procedural compliance even for litigants in person, it also aligns with the general lenience shown by the courts to litigants in person. 

With thanks to Aimee Guzinska-Bowley for her assistance in drafting this article.