A High Court judge has barred public access to Entain’s legal responses amid claims by ex-executives over a Turkish bribery probe.
The High Court of Justice this week ordered the formal defences filed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP and Entain in the claim brought by former GVC Holdings executives Kenny Alexander and Lee Feldman must remain under seal, preventing disclosure without further court approval.
The ruling, issued in the Chancery Division on 13 May, follows rival applications by both defendants to keep their defences private under CPR 5.4C(4) and related confidentiality orders from April.
Under the terms of the order, no non-party may obtain sight of the sealed defences without giving at least seven days’ notice to all claimants, defendants and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Any application for other documents touching on the content of the confidentiality orders issued on 14 and 16 April must similarly observe the seven-day notice requirement, with the right of any interested person, including the DPP, to apply to vary the order on identical notice.
An Entain spokesperson told NEXT.io: “Entain considers the claim to be without merit and it will contest it robustly.”
NEXT.io understands these applications can be standard for commercially sensitive matters.
Alexander and Feldman, respectively Entain’s chief executive from 2007 to 2020 and its non-executive chairman until 2023, launched proceedings on 13 February against both Entain and its long-standing legal adviser, Addleshaw Goddard.
Ex-execs argues Entain disclosed privileged legal advice
They argue that in negotiating a £615m Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with HMRC over alleged bribery in Entain’s former Turkish business, privileged legal advice was disclosed to investigators without their consent.
Entain agreed the DPA in mid-2023 to settle allegations that its Turkish operations had paid illegal commissions to local agents.
As part of the deal, the company made a charitable donation of £20m and covered HMRC’s costs, but no individuals were prosecuted.
Alexander and Feldman argue they were joint clients of Addleshaw Goddard and should therefore have access to any advice the firm provided to the company in connection with the DPA.
They are seeking a court declaration confirming their client status and an order compelling disclosure of the relevant materials.