The hearing of a High Court dispute over an alleged oral agreement giving 5 per cent of a Conor McGregor-founded whiskey brand to his former MMA sparring partner will go ahead later this year after a judge approved moves to amend the date of the original claim.
Ms Justice Nessa Cahill, on Wednesday, granted Artem Lobov permission to amend his pleadings in the case in which he claims Mr McGregor made an oral agreement with him for a 5 per cent share, made in a gym in 2017.
The court heard Mr Lobov is now saying the meeting at which the oral agreement was made took place on October 9th, 2017, not September 2017 as originally claimed. It arose after Mr Lobov, while preparing for the hearing, found an old mobile phone which clarified the meeting was not in September 2017.
It was also in circumstances where Mr Lobov knew Mr McGregor had been defeated in a boxing match with Floyd Mayweather in August 2017. The court heard Mr McGregor was in Ibiza in September and said he could not have been present on the date Mr Lobov originally claimed.
Michael Gaine case update: Gardaí recover chainsaw and more body parts from farmyard of murdered farmer
Two Israeli embassy staff shot dead near Jewish museum in Washington DC
The Lobster Pot review: This Ballsbridge classic still flames on – but you’ll pay to watch it burn
Trump confronts Cyril Ramaphosa with allegations of mass killings of white South Africans
Russia-born Mr Lobov claims he was involved in the creation of, and working on setting up, the “Proper Number Twelve” Irish whiskey brand which was reported to be sold for US$600 million (€530 million) to Proximo Spirits in 2021. Mr McGregor was reported to have received $130 million from the sale.
Proximo cut ties with Mr McGregor and the brand following last year’s separate High Court action in which a civil jury found he should pay almost €250,000 for raping a woman, Nikita Hand, in a Dublin hotel in December 2018. That decision is being appealed.
The hearing of the whiskey claim was due to go ahead this week but was postponed to allow Mr Lobov, who lives in Mulhuddart, Dublin, apply to amend his case after he had discovered the old phone with information alerting him to the October date.
The McGregor side, who denied there was any oral agreement, opposed the amendment.
On Wednesday, after hearing arguments from lawyers for both sides, Ms Justice Cahill said she was satisfied to allow the amendment. She approved directions for the progress of the case to hearing but noted it is unlikely to get a date until after the long courts vacation.
Earlier Andrew Walker SC said Mr Lobov had told his solicitor Dermot McNamara that he discovered the old phone in March.
While his side accepted it would have been far better if the amendment to the claim had been made sooner, the law was clear that a litigant can bring an application to amend at any time and the court has a wide ranging discretion to grant it.
This was not a case where there was irredeemable prejudice to the defendant and it was also not bound to fail, which are the only two barriers to an amendment, he said.
He accepted the defence was going to have to meet its three witnesses who were to give evidence on behalf of Mr McGregor so they can now have to deal with where they were in the relevant week of October 2017. This was not insurmountable but it would take more time, he said.
Mr Walker also accepted the amendment will have cost implications for his client.
Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, agreed there was no irredeemable prejudice or that the case was bound to fail.
“But those who receive absolution have to admit the sin or at least provide an explanation as to how this occurred”, he said.
There was “no interest” on the part of the Lobov side to address that, he said. “The reason was to secure a litigious advantage as something that could be dealt with on the day of the trial”, he said.
It arose in circumstances where after Mr Lobov told his lawyer about the new phone, a decision was taken not to reveal this until the eleventh hour, he said.
The court would, in those circumstances, be entitled to not grant permission to amend the case but could otherwise have been granted, he said.
Ms Justice Cahill said she would give reasons in a written judgment in due course for her decision to allow the amendment along with dealing with the question of costs.
