Greening-Steer suffered a fractured spine and a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. However, surveillance footage allegedly shows him walking normally, contradicting his claims. This has raised suspicions about the validity of his compensation claim.

The defence argues that Greening-Steer’s claim should be valued at £112,022 instead of the requested £4.92 million. Neurosurgeons have concluded that he is exaggerating his symptoms, suggesting possible malingering to enhance the value of his claim.

Key claims by Greening-Steer:

• He reports difficulties with manual dexterity, including struggles with buttons and laces.
• He claims he can only walk 100 meters without exhaustion, yet he has been filmed walking 150 meters.
• The total damages claim includes over £1.8 million for lifetime care and assistance.
• He was running a refrigerated trailer business at the time of the accident but now asserts he can no longer work.

If found fundamentally dishonest, Greening-Steer could receive nothing from his claim. Charles Woodhouse KC stated, “His dishonesty has been present from the start of and throughout his claim.” A medical expert noted that conscious exaggeration is clearly depicted, adding that Greening-Steer appears to be malingering.

The trial is ongoing, with observers closely watching the proceedings in the High Court. The outcome may set a precedent for future personal injury cases involving similar allegations of fraud.

The post Grant greening steer compensation claim appeared first on News Casino.

The Skinny Food Co has launched a High Court claim against B&M, seeking nearly £14 million in damages. This legal action follows claims that Skinny was removed from B&M’s supplier list on two occasions, in 2021 and 2025, with the initial de-listing allegedly occurring after investment negotiations fell through.

Legal proceedings commenced in February, and court filings indicate that Skinny claims total losses from both de-listings amount to at least £16.85 million. In the year ending August 2021, orders from B&M reached £10.7 million, but this figure plummeted to approximately £3.2 million the following year.

Skinny invested over £235,000 in new machinery to meet expected demand from B&M, but the retailer ceased adding new Skinny products to its shelves from 2023. In June 2025, B&M formally notified Skinny of its decision to remove all remaining products by December 2025.

George Spalton KC, representing Skinny, stated that B&M’s decision to de-list Skinny was motivated at least by the breakdown of negotiations between Robin Arora and Skinny regarding a proposed investment by the Arora family. Spalton further alleged that Arora made threatening remarks during these negotiations.

Robin Arora had previously indicated his influence over Skinny’s business, stating he was “the only person that can make or break your business” and that he could “ruin Skinny’s business if he wanted to.” In a direct remark, he told B&M, “You have really f***** yourselves over at B&M.”

B&M has yet to submit its defence in this ongoing legal matter. The commercial relationship between Skinny and B&M began in late 2020, and the current lawsuit marks a significant escalation in their business dispute.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding the full implications of this lawsuit on both companies and their future dealings.

The post Skinny Food B&M Lawsuit: High Court Claim Seeks £14 Million in Damages appeared first on News Casino.

Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, a 28-year-old member of the group Kneecap, has successfully won an appeal against a terror charge related to his alleged support for Hezbollah. The ruling was handed down by the High Court in London on Wednesday afternoon.

The case stemmed from an incident on November 21, 2024, when Ó hAnnaidh was accused of displaying a Hezbollah flag during a performance. However, the High Court ruled that the original charge was ‘unlawful’ and that the judge had no jurisdiction to try the case.

This decision follows a previous dismissal of the case last September, which was based on technical grounds concerning the timing of the charge. The High Court clarified that the case fell outside the six-month timeframe for bringing such charges.

Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, 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.” He emphasized his commitment to speaking out, declaring, “I will not be silent. Kneecap will not be silent.”

The Crown Prosecution Service had appealed the earlier decision to dismiss the case, but the High Court upheld the dismissal, reinforcing the legal interpretation regarding the jurisdiction of summary offences.

Lord Justice Edis remarked, “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 ruling is significant as it clarifies how the law applies to the issuing of written charges in summary offences, particularly when attorney general permission is required for prosecution.

The High Court’s decision was detailed in a 13-page document, which outlined the legal framework surrounding the case. The ruling has sparked reactions from various quarters, with supporters of Ó hAnnaidh expressing relief at the outcome.

As the legal proceedings conclude, the implications of this case may resonate within discussions about freedom of expression and the boundaries of law enforcement in the UK.

The post Kneecap Member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh Wins Appeal Against Terror Charge appeared first on News Casino.

What are the implications of Eni Aluko’s recent victory in her libel case against Joey Barton? The High Court in London ruled in favor of Aluko, ordering Barton to pay £339,000 in damages and legal costs, a significant outcome that highlights the serious nature of online harassment.

Aluko’s legal battle against Barton, which she described as a “two-year marathon,” stemmed from a series of posts made by Barton on his X account. Between January and August 2024, Barton published 48 posts that Aluko claimed amounted to harassment. The court found that these publications were not only damaging but also constituted an attack on multiple aspects of her life and personality.

Following the ruling, Aluko expressed her relief and happiness on social media, stating, “I’m glad it’s the end.” Her legal team, led by Gervase de Wilde, emphasized that Barton has now accepted that his campaign against Aluko was inappropriate. De Wilde remarked, “Mr. Barton has now accepted that his campaign against Ms. Aluko amounted to harassment and that he should not have made the publications.” This acknowledgment marks a significant turning point in the case.

On the day before the court hearing, Barton was arrested for an unrelated incident, which may have influenced the proceedings. He was charged with Section 18 wounding with intent following an alleged assault involving Kevin Lynch, a 51-year-old man. Despite these serious allegations, Barton did not attend the court hearing, raising questions about his commitment to addressing the legal issues at hand.

The High Court case was initially stayed, meaning that proceedings were halted, but the eventual ruling has now set a precedent for future cases involving online harassment and libel. 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.

Aluko’s victory is not just a personal triumph; it also serves as a broader commentary on the responsibilities individuals have when engaging in online discourse. The case underscores the potential consequences of online behavior and the legal ramifications that can arise from it.

As the dust settles on this high-profile case, the legal landscape surrounding online harassment continues to evolve. The outcome of Aluko’s case may influence how similar cases are approached in the future, particularly as social media platforms become increasingly central to public discourse. Details remain unconfirmed regarding any further actions Barton may take in response to the ruling, but the implications of this case will likely resonate within the legal community and beyond.

The post Eni Aluko Wins Libel Case Against Joey Barton appeared first on News Casino.