Conor McGregor’s former sparring partner and close friend Artem Lobov has failed to obtain a court order barring the mixed martial arts star from allegedly making defamatory comments about him on social media.
The Supreme Court ruled that while messages posted on Twitter by McGregor (34), in which he called Lobov a “rat”, among other things, could be considered “a diatribe of vulgar abuse” from a “trashtalk” MMA fighter, no reasonable member of society would attach some significance to it.
Justice Garrett Simons said he was not convinced the tweets complained of were clearly defamatory.
The finding meant that the retired Russian-born combatant’s application failed a legal test for the award of the warrant he sought.
McGregor’s abusive tweets came against the background of a lawsuit in which Lobov (36) is suing him for millions of euros.
Lobov claims he never received a penny for his contribution to the development of McGregor’s hugely successful whiskey brand Propert No. Twelve, despite an alleged verbal agreement that he would pay 5 pc. would receive from the proceeds.
McGregor is said to have received $ 130 million (€ 122 million) for his share of the whiskey trade, a deal that made him the highest-earning athlete in the world last year.
After Lobov filed suit in November, McGregor used his Twitter account, which has 9.7 million followers, to publish a series of abusive posts about his former friend.
These include calling Lobov “a rat”, a “bum bag, fairy toad”, a “coat tail riding rat c***”, and a “twist jacket pr***”.
Earlier this week, Lobov’s lawyers argued that the term “rat” was defamatory to their client, as it meant he was an informant, a person who betrayed someone, a person who discloses confidential information, and a person who double-crosses.
They sought an injunction to prohibit the further publication of an online voice message published Nov. 26 on McGregor’s Twitter account and similar messages.
In the message, McGregor sang, “Artem is a ra-at nah nah nah hey, nah nah nah hey rat.”
In a written judgment today, Mr Justice Garrett Simons denied Lobov’s request.
He said that in order to secure the requested warrant, Lobov had to pass two legal tests.
The first was that the statement was clearly defamatory and the second was that McGregor could not have a defense that had a reasonable chance of succeeding.
The judge said that, in his opinion, the application had failed the first of these tests.
“The prosecution has not convinced me that the tweets complained of are clearly defamatory,” Judge Simons said.
“The hypothetically reasonable reader would not understand that they have the meaning that the prosecution is arguing for. It is more likely that they would be regarded as little more than a diatribe, a diatribe of vulgar abuse by an MMA fighter with a reputation for “trash talk.”
“Certainly, there is no reasonable basis for believing that the tweets would damage the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society. No reasonable member of society would attach any significance to these tweets.”
The judge also said that while Lobov had relied somewhat on an alleged violation of Twitter’s rules regarding “offensive content,” those rules were not a basis for the court to issue an injunction in proceedings where Twitter did not party.
In an affidavit, Lobov’s attorney Dermot McNamara had alleged that the Twitter posts were part of “a concerted social media barrage” with the intent to “harass, intimidate and defame” his client.
The lawyer said he had not received a response from McGregor’s lawyers when he wrote asking for a commitment to stop publishing such messages.
McGregor’s counsel Remy Farrell SC, instructed by attorney Michael Staines, had opposed the injunction application.
He said “trash talk” between rival MMA fighters was commonplace, that the application was “completely untenable”, and raised issues related to free speech.