Conor McGregor whiskey dispute to go ahead after change to claim is allowed
Ms Justice Nessa Cahill on Wednesday granted Artem Lobov permission to amend his pleadings in the case, in which he claims Mr McGregor made an oral agreement with him for a 5 per cent share made in a gym in 2017.
Advertisement
The court heard Mr Lobov is now saying the meeting at which the oral agreement was made took place on October 9th, 2017, not September 2017 as originally claimed. It arose after Mr Lobov, while preparing for the hearing, found an old mobile phone which clarified the meeting was not in September 2017.
It was also in circumstances where Mr Lobov knew Mr McGregor had been defeated in a boxing match with Floyd Mayweather in August 2017. The court heard Mr McGregor was in Ibiza in September and said he could not have been present on the date Mr Lobov originally claimed.
Russia-born Mr Lobov claims he was involved in the creation of and working on setting up the "Proper Number Twelve" Irish whiskey brand which was reported to be sold for $600 million (€529 million) to Proximo Spirits in 2021. Mr McGregor was reported to have received $130 million from the sale.
Proximo cut ties with Mr McGregor and the brand following last year's separate High Court action in which a civil jury found he should pay almost €250,000 for raping a woman, Nikita Hand, in a Dublin hotel in December 2018. That decision is being appealed.
Advertisement
The hearing of the whiskey claim was due to go ahead this week but was postponed to allow Mr Lobov, who lives in Mulhuddart, Dublin, apply to amend his case after he had discovered the old phone with information alerting him to the October date.
The McGregor side, who denied there was any oral agreement, opposed the amendment.
On Wednesday, after hearing arguments from lawyers for both sides, Ms Justice Cahill said she was satisfied to allow the amendment. She approved directions for the progress of the case to hearing but noted it is unlikely to get a date until after the long courts vacation.
Earlier, Andrew Walker SC said Mr Lobov had told his solicitor Dermot McNamara solicitor that he discovered the old phone in March.
Advertisement
While his side accepted it would have been far better if the amendment to the claim had been made sooner, the law was clear that a litigant can bring an application to amend at any time and the court has a wide ranging discretion to grant it.
This was not a case where there was irredeemable prejudice to the defendant and it was also not bound to fail, which are the only two barriers to an amendment, he said.
He accepted the defence was going to have to meet its three witnesses who were to give evidence on behalf of Mr McGregor so they can now have to deal with where they were in the relevant week of October 2017. This was not insurmountable but it would take more time, he said.
Mr Walker also accepted the amendment will have cost implications for his client.
Advertisement
Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, agreed there was no irredeemable prejudice or that the case was bound to fail.
"But those who receive absolution have to admit the sin or at least provide an explanation as to how this occurred", he said.
Ireland
'God bless Ireland': Conor McGregor attends anti-i...
Read More
There was "no interest" on the part of the Lobov side to address that, he said. "The reason was to secure a litigious advantage as something that could be dealt with on the day of the trial", he said.
It arose in circumstances where after Mr Lobov told his lawyer about the new phone, a decision was taken not to reveal this until the 11th hour, he said.
The court would, in those circumstances, be entitled to not grant permission to amend the case but could otherwise have been granted, he said.
Ms Justice Cahill said she would give reasons in a written judgment in due course for her decision to allow the amendment along with dealing with the question of costs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police officers detained after smacking son win appeal after ‘unlawful' arrests
Two married police officers who were arrested after one of them smacked their teenage son have won a High Court battle over claims they were unlawfully detained. The officers, who both serve with the Metropolitan Police, were arrested by Surrey Police in March 2019 after the wife gave her son what she described as a 'light smack on the left cheek' after he misbehaved. They sued Surrey Police after being told they would face no further action, claiming their detention was unlawful as it was unnecessary. The couple, who have three children, had their claims dismissed following a trial last year and appealed against the decision at the High Court earlier this month. In a ruling on Monday, Mr Justice Bourne overturned the decision. He said: 'In my judgment, on a proper analysis of the evidence at trial, the police did not show that there was an objective basis for the belief that it was necessary to arrest either claimant.' The judge said in a 30-page ruling that at the time of the incident, the couple's son, referred to as ABD, had 'an unfortunate history of challenging behaviour' and had begun attending a youth centre to access mental health services. The couple cancelled ABD's birthday party in March 2019 after he misbehaved, causing him to go to his room, where he 'kicked things around'. This led his mother to smack her son while his father was asleep, which she said 'was not hard and did not cause any injury or leave any mark'. ABD attended the youth centre the following day and told staff that he had been assaulted by his mother and that his father had done nothing to stop it. Despite offering to be interviewed voluntarily, both parents were arrested and detained for more than seven hours. ABD returned to the family home the following day, with police deeming that the children were not at risk of harm and telling the couple that they would face no further action three days after their arrest. Following a five-day trial at Guildford County Court, a judge dismissed their legal claims, finding that police 'reasonably believed' that their arrests were necessary 'to protect a child or children from the person in question and to enable a prompt and effective investigation'. The judge also ordered the couple to pay 70 per cent of the force's legal costs. At a hearing in London on July 2, barristers for the couple told the High Court that the judge 'erred' by finding that the arrests were 'objectively reasonable' as both parents had offered to give voluntary interviews. In his ruling, Mr Justice Bourne said he was 'unable to agree' with the trial judge's finding that there was a 'rational basis' for officers to conclude that voluntary interviews were not an option. He said: 'In the present case, no reason has been identified which actually explains why voluntary interviews were not a viable alternative.' He continued: 'None of this means that police officers are entitled to special treatment when they find themselves suspected of an offence. 'But the police must assess the circumstances and make rational decisions as to whether coercive measures are needed or not.' He added: 'Merely referring to the need to protect children and to protect the integrity of the investigation was not and is not enough. 'It follows that the arrests were unlawful and the claims should have succeeded.'
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Buyout groups explore sale of British wealth manager Evelyn, sources say
LONDON, July 28 (Reuters) - Private equity firms Permira and Warburg Pincus are exploring the possible sale of Evelyn Partners, one of the UK's largest wealth managers, three sources with knowledge of the matter said. The owners are working with advisers to prepare for a potential sale of the London-based business towards the end of the year, two of the people said. It could be valued at more than 2.5 billion pounds ($3.36 billion) in a sale, one of the people said. A sale could draw interest from UK banks and private equity investors as well as Canadian and U.S. financial institutions, one of the sources and an industry specialist said. The sources, who requested anonymity because the matter is private, cautioned that the discussions are at an early stage and that no deal is guaranteed. Permira, Warburg Pincus and Evelyn declined to comment. A sale of Evelyn would be the latest in a wave of deals across Europe's wealth management industry as companies hunt for scale and investors look to tap into rising demand for personalised financial advice. Across Europe, 113 asset and wealth management deals were struck in the first six months of 2025, up from 90 in the same period last year, according to data from EY. Deal value also rose to $2.7 billion this year, from $1.9 billion in the same period last year, the data shows. Permira shifted its stake in Evelyn into a continuation fund in 2023, Reuters previously reported. The shareholders had reportedly the year prior considered a sale or initial public offering of the London-based company, but a transaction never materialised. Since then Evelyn has been selling assets. In November 2024 it announced the sale of its accounting business to Apax Partners to refocus on wealth management. It also said it sold its fund solutions business to Thesis in January. Evelyn generated adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) of 174.3 million pounds in 2024, an increase of 11.8% from a year earlier, driven by net inflows and investment performance, according to its latest results in March. Permira has owned Evelyn Partners, formerly known as Tilney Smith & Williamson, since 2014, funding its growth from a 5-billion-pound wealth manager to one overseeing 63 billion pounds in client assets. Warburg Pincus became a minority investor in 2020 to fund a merger between Tilney and accounting firm Smith & Williamson. The remainder of the shares are held by current and former staff. Wealth management assets in North America are valued more highly than in the UK, where the pound is also cheaper than the dollar, handing potential U.S. bidders firepower to pay more, one of the three people said. In Europe, wealth managers trade at 15 to 17 times EBITDA compared to around 20 times EBITDA in North America, this person added. U.S. companies have previously targeted the sector including Royal Bank of Canada ( opens new tab, which bought, opens new tab Brewin Dolphin for 1.6 billion pounds in 2022. U.S. financial group Raymond James also struck a 279 million pound deal to take over wealth manager Charles Stanley in 2021. ($1 = 0.7444 pounds)
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU-US trade deal could add up to $19 billion in pharma industry costs, analysts say
July 28 (Reuters) - The European Union's trade deal with the United States could cost the pharmaceutical industry between $13 billion and $19 billion as branded medicines become subject to a tariff of 15%, analysts said on Monday. The added costs could raise prices for consumers unless pharmaceutical companies take action to mitigate the impact of the tariffs, one of the analysts said. Pharmaceuticals had historically been exempt from duties. Medicines are the largest European exports to the United States by value and the EU accounts for about 60% of all pharmaceutical imports to the U.S. On Sunday, European officials said that a bilateral trade deal for an across-the-board 15% tariff included pharmaceuticals, except for some generic drugs, which would be subject to no tariffs. The U.S. has been conducting a national security investigation into the pharmaceutical sector and the industry has been bracing for separate sectoral tariffs. President Donald Trump said earlier this month, before negotiating the bilateral deal, that pharmaceutical tariffs could be as high as 200%. Some Wall Street analysts said that they do not expect additional tariffs on the EU as a result of the investigation, but others cautioned that the deal was not yet signed and that several questions remained unanswered. UBS analyst Matthew Weston said that he expects details of the trade deal to include protective measures for EU pharma exports from the U.S. investigation, especially since such measures are being discussed in negotiations with the United Kingdom and Switzerland. ING analyst Diederik Stadig also said that while tariffs on top of the 15% were not expected, even after the conclusion of the national security investigations, nothing is completely clear "until a trade deal is inked." Stadig estimates that these levies could add $13 billion to industry expenses without any mitigation strategies, and some of that could be ultimately borne by the consumer. Bernstein analyst Courtney Breen puts the additional expenses at $19 billion for the industry, but she notes that companies might be able to absorb some of the costs with the measures they have been implementing — such as stockpiling of drug products and new deals with contract researchers. Earlier this month, Sanofi ( opens new tab said it will sell a manufacturing facility in New Jersey to Thermo Fisher (TMO.N), opens new tab, where the French drugmaker's therapies will continue to be manufactured. Roche's (ROG.S), opens new tab CEO Thomas Schinecker said last week that the company was increasing its U.S. inventories to avoid any immediate disruption from tariffs. UBS' Weston said that it was not immediately clear which generic drugs were exempted from duties under the deal, but any impact for generic drugmaker Sandoz (SDZ.S), opens new tab for this year should mostly be manageable. Shares in pharmaceutical companies Sanofi, Roche and Sandoz Group all closed up between 0.5% and 1% on Monday.
