Automated Summary
Key Facts
Lee Feldman and Kenneth Alexander, former executives of GVC Holdings Ltd (later Entain Plc), had their civil claims against the Gambling Commission dismissed at trial in December 2025. The claimants sought permission to appeal, which was refused by Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady on March 4, 2026. Separately, both claimants face ongoing criminal proceedings for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to bribe (2011-2018), with trial scheduled for February 2028. The claimants applied for a Restricted Reporting Order to postpone publication of certain findings from the judgment until after the criminal trial concludes. The court granted a limited RRO covering only specific findings identified as likely to prejudice the criminal proceedings, while allowing the rest of the judgment to be published.
Issues
- Whether the appeal would have a real prospect of success or whether there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under CPR 52.6(1). The judge refused permission to appeal as the grounds raised did not identify a real prospect of success and no other compelling reason existed for the Court of Appeal to consider the matter.
- Whether a Restricted Reporting Order (RRO) under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 should be made to postpone reporting of the judgment until after the return of the last verdict in the Criminal Proceedings. The court considered whether reporting would create a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice, whether the RRO would eliminate that risk, and whether less restrictive means could achieve the same objective. The judge granted a limited RRO postponing reporting of specific findings identified by the claimants.
Holdings
The Court refused the claimants' application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on six grounds. The Court dismissed the claimants' claims for misuse of private information and breach of confidence. A Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) was granted to the limited extent of postponing the reporting of specific findings in the Judgment until after the return of the last verdict in the related Criminal Proceedings.
Remedies
The court granted a limited Restriction on Reporting Order (RRO) that postpones the reporting of specific findings identified in the Judgment until after the return of the last verdict in the Criminal Proceedings. The RRO does not cover the entire Judgment, only the Findings that the claimants had identified as potentially prejudicial to the criminal proceedings. The Judgment itself will be published in open form with the Findings redacted, and the full reasoning will also be postponed until the Criminal Proceedings conclude.
Legal Principles
- Section 1 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 establishes a strict liability rule where publications may be treated as contempt regardless of intent. However, section 2 limits this to publications creating a substantial risk of serious impediment or prejudice to the course of justice. Section 4(1) provides an exception for fair and accurate reports of public proceedings published contemporaneously and in good faith.
- The open justice principle requires that all court proceedings are conducted in public and judgments are to be publicly pronounced. This is a cardinal constitutional principle at common law and under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A Restriction on Reporting Order (RRO) is a derogation from open justice and is exceptional, requiring clear justification and only being made when strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.
- Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 enables courts to postpone reporting of legal proceedings where it appears necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. The court applies a three-stage approach from Ex parte The Telegraph Group plc: (1) whether reporting would give rise to substantial risk of prejudice; (2) whether a section 4(2) order would eliminate the risk; and (3) whether the risk is tolerable as the lesser of two evils, balancing competing public interests.
- The court balances the public interest in understanding court decisions, particularly where serious allegations are made against a public regulatory body, against the public policy obligation to ensure fair trial in related criminal proceedings. The court must consider whether the reporting of judgments at this stage would give rise to a serious risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in subsequent criminal proceedings.
Precedent Name
- In re C (A Child) (Private Judgment: Publication)
- In re British Broadcasting Corporation
- Ex p The Telegraph Group plc
- Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd
- Secretary of State for Defence v Persons Unknown
- Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd
Cited Statute
- Access to Justice Act 1999
- Contempt of Court Act 1981
- European Convention on Human Rights
Judge Name
Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE
Passage Text
- I therefore allow the claimants' application for a RRO to the limited extent of postponing the reporting of the Findings they have identified. An open version of the Judgment will duly be published, that, along with those passages that have already been identified as being subject to Hill J's RRO, will remove the Findings.
- Limiting the reporting of a judgment by means of a RRO is thus a clear derogation from the open justice principle; it is rightly described as a form of press censorship (Khuja) and, as such, is to be treated as 'exceptional' (MR Guidance), requiring clear justification, and only to be made where strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice
- I am not persuaded that the balance would tip in favour of a RRO covering the Judgment in its entirety. That would mean that the explanation for rejecting these claims would remain unknown for a long time, notwithstanding the fact that much of the reasoning stands independently of the Findings the claimants have identified. It would further mean that findings in favour of the defendant – absolving it (and its chief executive) from many of the allegations made – would not be available, notwithstanding the very strong public interest in this regard.