Marinakis v Karypidou & Ors [2026] EWHC 1192 (KB) (20 May 2026)

Marinakis v Karypidou & Ors [2026] EWHC 1192 (KB) (20 May 2026)

The court found that the publications, when read in their full context including hyperlinked material, conveyed meanings at the highest Chase levels, amounting to direct allegations of criminality and serious wrongdoing against the claimant as statements of fact, with certain evaluative words constituting opinion based on those facts. The words complained of are defamatory at common law.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1192 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Evangelos Marinakis; First Defendant: Eirini Karypidou; Second Defendant: Ari Harow; Third Defendant: Sheyaan Consulting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Libel and Unlawful Means Conspiracy / Preliminary Issues Trial on the Papers
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; claimant's case on meaning broadly accepted; statements of case to be amended to reflect judgment.
Legal Topics
Libel, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory at Common Law, Hyperlink Context, Chase Levels
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Unlawful Means Conspiracy Meaning of Defamatory Statements Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory at Common Law +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evangelos Marinakis

Claimant

Eirini Karypidou

First Defendant

Ari Harow

Second Defendant

Sheyaan Consulting Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Unlawful Means Conspiracy / Preliminary Issues Trial on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of each publication?
  2. 2 Are the statements defamatory of the claimant at common law?
  3. 3 Are the statements fact or opinion, and if opinion, is the basis indicated?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the publications, when read in their full context including hyperlinked material, conveyed meanings at the highest Chase levels, amounting to direct allegations of criminality and serious wrongdoing against the claimant as statements of fact, with certain evaluative words constituting opinion based on those facts. The words complained of are defamatory at common law.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; claimant's case on meaning broadly accepted; statements of case to be amended to reflect judgment.

Orders

  • Meanings of the publications determined as set out in the judgment.
  • Statements of case to be amended accordingly.