Conor McGregor whiskey case hearing delayed following new information

The High Court hearing of a dispute over a claim by a former sparring partner of Conor McGregor for a share in a whiskey brand founded by the MMA fighter is not going ahead as planned next week after the case was “fundamentally changed” to what was originally pleaded.

The case by Russian Artem Lobov, claiming he had an oral agreement for a 5 per cent share made with Mr McGregor in a gym in September 2017, was due to begin next Tuesday with eight days set aside for the hearing.

The case concerns Mr Lobov’s claim for a share in creating the idea for and working on setting up the “Proper Number Twelve” Irish whiskey brand.

It was sold in 2021 to Proximo Spirits for a reported sum of up to US$600 million (€530 million). Mr McGregor was reported to have received $130 million from the sale.

Blue flags: Record number of Irish beaches and marinas win award for 2025

John Collison of Stripe: ‘I am baffled by companies doing an about-face on social initiatives’

Even Claire Byrne is alarmed by what she hears about life for Irish teenagers

Proximo cut ties with Mr McGregor and the brand following last year’s separate High Court action in which a civil jury found he should pay almost €250,000 for raping a woman, Nikita Hand, in a Dublin hotel in December 2018. That decision is being appealed.

On Thursday, a judge said he was reluctantly going to allow the case to proceed next week after he expressed concerns about whether or not it was ready.

The court heard Mr Lobov’s side was late in lodging pretrial legal submissions. This meant Mr McGregor’s side was unable to have its submissions in before the case was due to begin.

On Friday, Mr Justice Brian Cregan was told Mr Lobov’s submissions had been received after Thursday’s court hearing and they contained a proposal that the date of the alleged oral agreement was not as first claimed to be, in September 2017, but October 2017.

Shelley Horan BL, for Mr McGregor, said her side had prepared the case on the basis that it was a September date that the alleged oral agreement was made and they had interviewed four people who were supposed to present when it occurred in a gym.

As a result, it had significant implications for the case, which counsel had described as being primarily evidence based. Her side was prejudiced by this amendment to the case and would now need time to prepare for what would be a new claim.

Ms Horan also said no specific date had been given for the September claim which had created challenges for the defendant in preparing the case. The defence denied there was any oral agreement.

Andrew Walker SC, for Mr Lobov, accepted what had happened was wholly unacceptable but he was seeking leave to bring a motion to amend the case next week with an affidavit setting out the rationale as to why this had happened.

Asked by Mr Justice Cregan why, when the court set the hearing date for next Tuesday, that the fact the case had “changed fundamentally” had not been brought to the judge’s attention, Mr Walker said he would like to have that put on affidavit.

The new date is a month later, not months later or a different year, he said. New information was discovered by Mr Lobov on an old phone which gave him clarity about the date, he said.

After the case was put back to later in the morning for Mr Walker to get instructions, counsel said he was agreeing to an adjournment of next week’s hearing.

The judge vacated the hearing date but said he would hear Mr Walker’s application next week to amend the statement of claim to put in the new October date.