Frank Warren v Christopher Livingstone Eubank Jnr [2025] EWHC 828 (KB)

[2025] EWHC 828 (KB)Case No KB-2024-004317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 4 April 2025
Before
MR JUSTICE JAY
Between
FRANK WARRENClaimantCHRISTOPHER LIVINGSTONE EUBANK JNRDefendant
Richard Munden (instructed by Thrings LLP) for ClaimantVictoria Jolliffe (instructed by Lawrence Stephens Ltd) for DefendantHearing Hearing date: 4 April 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2:30pm on 4 April 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................MR JUSTICE JAY

INTRODUCTION

[1]This is the trial of a preliminary issue of meaning as ordered by Master Gidden on 27 February 2025.

ESSENTIAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[2]The Claimant is a boxing promoter and the Defendant is a professional boxer.[3]On 25 September 2024 the Claimant and the Defendant were both on the stage at a press conference at Old Billingsgate Market in London. The purpose of the press conference was to set the scene for an upcoming fight between other boxers. Sky Sports broadcast the press conference live on its “Sky Sports Boxing” YouTube channel. During the course of the press conference, the Defendant was asked why he had changed his promotion team. He said this:
“Why BOXXER? Because every other promoter out here is a scumbag, that’s why. You know, you’ve got Frank Warren behind me, been lying and cheating his way through boxing for the last couple [of] decades. Sued me for a couple hundred thousand a few years ago so obviously I was never going to go with him. You know, the guy’s a scumbag.”
[4]These are the words complained of in para 5 of the Particulars of Claim and form the centrepiece of the preliminary issue ordered by Master Gidden.[5]I have seen and heard the relevant part of the press conference which remains available on YouTube. The press conference was published on various platforms, and there were further republications (both in video and purely written form) on social media and by third parties. The words complained of mean the same throughout these various publications and do not fluctuate as between the slander and libel claims.

GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

[6]These are set out in Gatley on Libel and Slander, 13th edition, chapter 13 and in the familiar decision of Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB); [2020] 4 WLR 25. No repetition of these principles is required in this judgment. I bear them well in mind. The only point I should emphasise for these purposes is that anyone present at the press conference or who saw and heard the live broadcast only heard the words complained of once. Somone who saw the social media posts may have read the words complained of more than once, but – as I have already suggested – the search is for a single, constant and unfluctuating meaning. This is not a case which should merit over-analysis.

THE COMPETING ARGUMENTS

[7]The Claimant’s case is that the words complained of mean:
“the Claimant is a liar and a cheat: a man who has been guilty throughout the past 20 years of his practice as a boxing promoter of having consistently, serially and routinely acted in ways that are seriously deceitful, dishonest and unethical, and of having defrauding those boxers he promotes along with the other parties he deals with throughout the sport.”
[8]Here is the Defendant’s competing version:
“The Claimant is guilty of repeated dishonest and unethical conduct in his practice as a boxing promoter over the past two decades.”
[9]Mr Richard Munden advanced a series of submissions in favour of the Claimant’s case. He contended that the allegation of lying is striking and requires prominent recognition in the determined meaning. He submitted that the adverb “repeatedly” does not sufficiently capture the frequency of the Claimant’s alleged wrongdoing because it can mean simply “more than once”. He argued that the allegation was a serious one and the single meaning should encapsulate that. Finally, he submitted that the victims should be identified.[10]Ms Victoria Jolliffe argued for something far simpler. Her case is that the Claimant’s version is overly complex and tautological.

CONCLUSIONS

[11]It is common ground that the words complained of are defamatory at common law and that the meaning should include a Chase level 1 meaning of guilt. The parties are also agreed that nothing turns on the soubriquet, “scumbag”. In my judgment, the meaning should not make the seriousness of the allegation explicit. That would be for the trial judge to determine.[12]Focusing on what the Defendant actually said, and I suspect that he chose his words carefully, the only words that matter are the following:
“You know, you’ve got Frank Warren behind me, been lying and cheating his way through boxing for the last couple decades.”
The reference to “behind me” was not metaphorical. The Claimant was sitting more or less directly behind the Defendant.[13]In my judgment, the Claimant’s formulation is overly wordy and complex. I agree with Ms Jolliffe that something simpler is required.[14]Plainly, the Defendant was not talking about the Claimant’s personal life. This was a remark about his work as a boxing promoter. Even in context, the remark was not limited to the Claimant’s business dealings in relation to boxers. “Through boxing” is very broad. Equally plainly in my view, the Defendant was saying that the Claimant has regularly over the past 20 years lied (i.e. told untruths) and has been acting dishonestly in his business dealings. According to the O.E.D., the verb “cheat” (“[has] been … cheating” is a verb phrase in the present perfect continuous tense) usually means “defraud” or “deceive”. To my mind, and on reflection, the word “cheat” is a simple enough word which does not require further definition or expansion.[15]In a similar vein, it is unnecessary to gloss or provide a synonym for “lied”. That is the word the Defendant used and its meaning is clear.[16]I agree with Mr Munden that “repeatedly” does not go quite far enough. It could mean “just twice” (its first listed meaning in the O.E.D.), and so for the avoidance of doubt something stronger is required. I have vacillated between “frequently”, “regularly” and “often” but ultimately prefer the former.[17]In my judgment, the single meaning of the words complained of is, therefore, as follows:
“Over the past 20 years the Claimant has frequently been guilty of lying and cheating in his business dealings as a boxing promoter.”