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.

Mike Lynch was involved in a legal dispute with Hewlett-Packard regarding the acquisition of his company Autonomy, which was alleged to have been fraudulently misrepresented. Following a lengthy legal battle, the estate of Mike Lynch has been ordered to pay £920 million to Hewlett-Packard as compensation for the acquisition of Autonomy. This ruling comes in the wake of HP’s accusations that Lynch inflated Autonomy’s value prior to the acquisition.

The estate’s estimated worth is about £500 million, which raises concerns that the damages could leave it bankrupt. The High Court previously ruled that HP was entitled to a total compensation of $1.24 billion, including $236 million in interest, after HP wrote down Autonomy’s worth by $8.8 billion within a year of the purchase.

Mike Lynch, once referred to as ‘Britain’s Bill Gates’, died in August 2024 when his superyacht sank off the coast of Sicily. The legal troubles surrounding his estate have continued to unfold posthumously, with HP initially seeking $5 billion in damages from Lynch’s estate following the acquisition of Autonomy. However, the estate has been denied the right to appeal a High Court ruling regarding the payment to HP.

A spokesperson for the Lynch family expressed disappointment at the court’s refusal, stating, “We are disappointed by the court’s refusal and believe an application to the court of appeal should follow in the interests of justice.” They further claimed that Dr. Lynch’s acquittal in the US, where witnesses were properly cross-examined, exposed the truth, asserting that the damage to Autonomy was the result of HP’s own actions and failures, not wrongdoing at Autonomy.

Despite the estate’s financial challenges, Lynch’s widow, Angela Bacares, holds significant assets independently, which may provide some cushion against the financial fallout from this ruling. The estate can apply directly to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the rulings, which could potentially alter the outcome of this ongoing legal saga.

Observers note that this case highlights the complexities involved in corporate acquisitions and the legal ramifications that can arise from alleged misrepresentation. The implications of the High Court’s ruling extend beyond the immediate financial impact on Lynch’s estate, as it raises questions about accountability and transparency in corporate dealings.

As the legal proceedings continue, the focus will remain on how the Lynch estate navigates this substantial financial obligation and whether it can successfully challenge the High Court’s decision. The outcome of any appeal could set a significant precedent for similar cases in the future, particularly in the tech industry where valuations can be contentious and heavily scrutinized.

The post Mike Lynch estate faces £920m compensation order from Hewlett-Packard appeared first on cottenhamnews.

Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, a 28-year-old member of the music group Kneecap, has won an appeal against a terror charge in the UK. The High Court’s ruling, delivered remotely on Wednesday afternoon, confirmed that the judge had no jurisdiction to try the case, which stemmed from an incident in London on November 21, 2024.

The case against Ó hAnnaidh was previously dismissed on technical grounds last September, with Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring deeming the charge “unlawful.” The Crown Prosecution Service had appealed this decision, but the High Court clarified that the case fell outside the six-month timeframe for bringing such charges.

The alleged offence involved the display of a flag in support of Hezbollah during a Kneecap gig. Following the ruling, Ó hAnnaidh stated, “This entire process was never about me, never about any threat to the public and never about ‘terrorism’, a word used by the British government to discredit people you oppress both in Ireland and across the world.”

Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, emphasized his commitment to speaking out, asserting, “I will not be silent. Kneecap will not be silent.” His comments reflect the group’s broader stance on political and social issues.

Lord Justice Edis, commenting on the ruling, stated, “The judge was right to hold that he had no jurisdiction to try any summary-only offence alleged to have been committed on that date.” This clarification from the High Court is significant for future cases involving similar charges.

The High Court’s decision also highlighted the legal requirements for issuing written charges in summary offences, particularly where attorney general permission is necessary for the director of public prosecutions to consent to a prosecution.

As the legal landscape surrounding this case evolves, reactions from various stakeholders are expected. The implications of this ruling may resonate beyond this specific incident, potentially affecting how similar cases are handled in the future.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding any further actions the Crown Prosecution Service may take following this ruling. The case has drawn attention not only for its legal ramifications but also for its intersection with political discourse in the UK.

The post Kneecap Member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh Wins Appeal Against Terror Charge 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.