Lee Feldman & Anor v Gambling Commission

Lee Feldman & Anor v Gambling Commission

The claimants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidence in the information published in the 2023 RNS or March 2024 statement, given the public nature of their business activities, prior media coverage, and regulatory context. Even if such expectation arose, it was outweighed by the defendant's statutory objectives and public interest in transparency. The defendant was not responsible for the publication of the 2023 RNS, and its involvement was limited to ensuring accurate representation of its position. The claims for misuse of private information and breach of confidence are not made out.

Parties
Claimant: Lee Feldman; Claimant: Kenneth Alexander; Defendant: Gambling Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence, Publicity Code, Regulatory Investigations, Section 116 Review, Damages, Injunctions
Privacy Regulatory Law Media Law Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence Publicity Code Regulatory Investigations Section 116 Review +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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Feldman

Claimant

Kenneth Alexander

Claimant

Gambling Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant misuse the claimants' private information or breach confidence in the 2023 RNS and March 2024 statement?
  2. 2 Did the claimants have a reasonable expectation of privacy/confidence in the information published?
  3. 3 Was the defendant responsible for the publication of the 2023 RNS?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidence in the information published in the 2023 RNS or March 2024 statement, given the public nature of their business activities, prior media coverage, and regulatory context. Even if such expectation arose, it was outweighed by the defendant's statutory objectives and public interest in transparency. The defendant was not responsible for the publication of the 2023 RNS, and its involvement was limited to ensuring accurate representation of its position. The claims for misuse of private information and breach of confidence are not made out.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed