The Skinny Food Co has launched a High Court claim against B&M, seeking nearly £14 million in damages. The legal proceedings commenced in February 2023, following allegations that Skinny was removed from B&M’s supplier list on two occasions, in 2021 and 2025.

According to court filings, the initial de-listing allegedly occurred after investment talks between Skinny and B&M fell through. Skinny claims total losses from both de-listings amount to at least £16.85 million, with orders from B&M plummeting from £10.7 million in the year ending August 2021 to approximately £3.2 million the following year.

In June 2025, B&M formally notified Skinny that it would remove all remaining products by December 2025, a decision that followed the cessation of new Skinny product additions to B&M’s shelves from 2023. Skinny had invested over £235,000 in new machinery to meet expected demand from B&M, further exacerbating its financial losses.

Robin Arora, a key figure in the negotiations, allegedly made threatening remarks during discussions, with George Spalton KC stating, “B&M’s decision to de-list Skinny was motivated at least by the breakdown of the negotiations between (Mr Arora) and Skinny in respect of the proposed investment by the Arora family in Skinny, and by (Mr Arora’s) desire to make good his threat to ‘ruin’ Skinny.”

Arora himself remarked, “He was ‘the only person that can make or break your business'” and further stated, “He was able to ruin Skinny’s business if he wanted to.” These comments have raised eyebrows as the lawsuit unfolds.

As of now, B&M has yet to submit its defense in the ongoing case. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for both companies, particularly as they navigate their commercial relationship, which began in late 2020.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding the next steps in the legal proceedings, but the stakes are high as both parties prepare for what could be a lengthy court battle.

The post Skinny Food B&M Lawsuit Seeks £14 Million in Damages appeared first on cottenhamnews.

“Defendant Cosby used his enormous wealth, power, fame, and prestige, giving women like Ms. Motsinger access to a world of celebrities and entertainers,” stated the jury in their verdict against Bill Cosby.

A California jury found Bill Cosby guilty of sexual assault in a civil trial held earlier this month. The jury deliberated for three days before reaching their decision, awarding Donna Motsinger $19.25 million in damages.

Motsinger alleged that Cosby drugged and raped her in 1972. She recounted, “She woke up in her house with all her clothes off, except her underwear on — no top, no bra, and no pants. She knew she had been drugged and raped by Bill Cosby.”

Cosby, who did not testify during the trial, has faced numerous allegations of sexual misconduct from over 60 women throughout his career. This verdict adds to his controversial history, which includes a previous conviction for sexual assault in 2018, for which he served three years in prison before being released in 2021 after a higher court reversed his conviction.

Following the verdict, Cosby announced plans to appeal the ruling, continuing his fight against the legal consequences of his actions. His legal team has not yet provided further details regarding the appeal process.

Cosby’s financial situation has also been impacted; his net worth has reportedly decreased to about $200 million, down from estimates of $300-$400 million in previous years. He also faces tax liabilities, with reports indicating he owes around $300,000 in taxes.

The civil trial marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding Cosby, whose history of sexual assault allegations dates back as far as six decades. The outcome of this trial may influence future cases and discussions regarding accountability for high-profile figures.

As the legal proceedings continue, many are watching closely for any developments regarding Cosby’s appeal and the implications it may have for victims of sexual assault.

The post Bill Cosby Found Guilty in Civil Trial appeared first on cottenhamnews.

What are the implications of Eni Aluko’s recent victory in her libel case against Joey Barton? The answer is significant, as Aluko has been awarded £339,000 in damages and legal costs, marking a notable moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding online harassment and defamation.

The High Court in London ruled in favor of Aluko, who expressed her happiness and relief following the judgment. She described the legal battle as a “two-year marathon,” reflecting the emotional and financial toll such cases can impose on individuals. Aluko’s legal team, led by Gervase de Wilde, highlighted that Barton accepted his campaign against Aluko amounted to harassment, acknowledging the impact of his 48 posts published on his X account between January and August 2024.

This case stems from two specific posts made by Barton in 2024, which Aluko argued were defamatory and damaging to her reputation. The court’s decision underscores the seriousness with which such allegations are treated, particularly in the context of social media, where rapid dissemination of information can lead to significant personal and professional repercussions.

In a dramatic turn of events, Barton was arrested the day before the court hearing, further complicating the proceedings. Despite the gravity of the situation, he did not attend the court hearing, which may reflect his ongoing legal troubles, including a charge of Section 18 wounding with intent following an alleged assault involving another individual, Kevin Lynch, aged 51.

Aluko’s victory is not just a personal triumph; it serves as a broader commentary on the need for accountability in online discourse. Gervase de Wilde stated, “The campaign amounted to an attack on multiple aspects of her life and personality,” emphasizing the multifaceted nature of the harm caused by Barton’s actions.

As part of the ruling, Barton has seven days to request a change to the court order, and the first £100,000 of the payment is due by March 24, 2026. This timeline adds another layer of complexity to the case, as it remains to be seen how Barton will respond to the court’s decision.

Aluko took to social media to thank her legal team and supporters, marking the end of a challenging chapter in her life. The outcome of this case not only vindicates her but also highlights the ongoing issues surrounding online harassment and the responsibilities of individuals in the digital age.

The post Eni Aluko Wins Libel Case Against Joey Barton appeared first on cottenhamnews.

“He was so intrinsically involved in the IRA organisation and that he was as culpable for the assaults giving rise to these claims as the individuals who planted and detonated the bombs,” stated Anne Studd KC, representing the plaintiffs in a high-profile court case against Gerry Adams.

The case, held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, involves three men suing Adams for his alleged involvement in IRA bombings, including the 1973 Old Bailey bombing and the 1996 London Docklands and Arndale shopping centre bombings. The plaintiffs are seeking £1 in damages, primarily for vindicatory purposes.

During the proceedings, the court heard that Adams was “directly responsible for and complicit” in the decisions surrounding the bombings. His legal team, however, argues that he played an instrumental role in the peace process that led to the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998.

Adams, who arrived at court wearing what appeared to be a bullet-proof vest, denies any role in the Provisional IRA and opposes the claims made against him. His defense is centered on the assertion that he was not a member of the organization at the time of the bombings.

Studd further elaborated, saying, “The defendant carefully draws a distinction between being a member of ‘the Army’ and being a member of Sinn Fein.” This distinction is crucial to Adams’ defense as he seeks to separate his political activities from the violent actions attributed to the IRA.

Edward Craven KC, representing Adams, emphasized that “the defendant’s alleged factual and legal responsibility for the claimants’ injuries is strongly contested.” This highlights the contentious nature of the trial, which is expected to conclude next week.

The plaintiffs include victims of the aforementioned bombings, which have left a lasting impact on the communities affected. The legal battle is seen as a significant moment in addressing historical grievances related to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

As the trial progresses, the court will continue to examine the evidence presented by both sides, with the outcome potentially influencing public perceptions of Adams and his legacy.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding any further developments in the case as it approaches its conclusion.

The post Gerry adams appeared first on cottenhamnews.