Feldman & Anor v Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 3117 (KB) (26 November 2025)

Feldman & Anor v Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 3117 (KB) (26 November 2025)

Reporting of certain details from the civil trial would pose a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in pending criminal proceedings. The risk is not insubstantial, and an RRO is strictly necessary to eliminate it. The procedural and substantive requirements for an RRO are met, and the order is a proportionate and justified derogation from open justice.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3117 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Lee Feldman; Claimant: Kenneth Alexander; Defendant: Gambling Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review, RRO Application
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Restricting Reporting Orders, Open Justice, Disclosure, Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence
Media Law Privacy Law Civil Procedure Restricting Reporting Orders Open Justice Disclosure Misuse of Private Information Breach of Confidence

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Feldman

Claimant

Kenneth Alexander

Claimant

Gambling Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Review, RRO Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Restricting Reporting Order under s.4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 should be granted to postpone reporting of aspects of the civil trial to avoid prejudice to pending criminal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the procedural and substantive requirements for an RRO are met
  3. 3 Whether the risk of prejudice to criminal proceedings is substantial

Ratio Decidendi

Reporting of certain details from the civil trial would pose a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in pending criminal proceedings. The risk is not insubstantial, and an RRO is strictly necessary to eliminate it. The procedural and substantive requirements for an RRO are met, and the order is a proportionate and justified derogation from open justice.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Restricting Reporting Order made under s.4(2) Contempt of Court Act 1981 postponing publication of any report of the civil trial referring to the contents of the Investigation Documents, CPS 2019 Case Summary, or other details relating to Operation Incendiary until after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
  • Order to be served directly on The Financial Times and via the Alert Service.