The owner of Nottingham Forest FC has been accused of bringing a libel claim for an ‘improper, collateral purpose’ against a rival in Greek football, the High Court in London has heard.
Evangelos Marinakis, who also owns Olympiakos FC, is suing Irini Karipidis, chair of Greek Super League club Aris Thessaloniki; a company called Amani Swiss (Cyprus) Limited; Ari Harow, formerly the chief of staff to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his company Sheyaan Consulting Ltd. The first two defendants are said to have paid £25,000 for a media campaign against Marinakis, which included allegations of money laundering, murder, organised crime, match fixing and an insinuation Nottingham Forest was purchased with drug money - all of which Marinakis strenuously denies.
In a preliminary hearing this week, Matthew Hodson, for Karipidis and Amani Swiss, said the claimant had not provided any evidence of serious harm to his reputation following the publications. He pointed out some of the allegations had been made in YouTube videos which received as few as 26 to 25 views and through an ‘X’ account which had just three followers, the posts of which received between eight to 39 impressions.
But Richard Spearman KC, sitting as a deputy judge in the High Court, pointed out some of the YouTube videos had between 20,000 and 16,000 views. ‘Broadly speaking, with allegations of this seriousness, just disseminating to a very small number of people will probably meet the serious harm criteria’, Spearman said.
Hudson pointed out the claimant was seeking up to £5 million in damages, arguing: ‘This is a case where the candle is not worth the wick, the game is not worth the candle.
‘This is not a genuine claim for redress, the actual harm has not been identified’, Hodson added. ‘The claimant has brought this claim for the improper, collateral purpose of beating the defendants over the head, to punish the first defendant. The nature of this case in the way that it is being prosecuted is beyond any possible proportion. It is an utterly disproportionate case.’
Hodson pointed out the claimant was seeking £350,000 in costs for Thursday's hearing alone. ‘Imagine what the costs will be like after a High Court trial’, he said. ‘The costs in this case are going to be extraordinary and all for the sake of a few posts on "X" that attract almost no views and posts on Youtube.’
The barrister called the action an abuse of process and asked the judge to refuse permission to allow the claimant to serve out on the defendants.
The hearing continues.
