Judge to rule on Friday in case alleging Conor McGregor's tweets defamed MMA fighter

Counsel for Conor McGregor said that both were MMA fighters, and in that sport "trash talk" between rivals was commonplace.

Counsel said Conor McGregor (pictured) may well have a defence to the claim of defamation including that his remarks are the truth and can be justified. File picture

The High Court has reserved judgment on an application made by retired MMA fighter Artem Lobov for orders requiring Conor McGregor to take down allegedly defamatory social media posts.

The case came before Mr Justice Garrett Simons, who said that he will rule on an application brought by Mr Lobov, which is opposed by Mr McGregor, for orders including an injunction requiring Mr McGregor to remove the material complained of, on Friday morning.

In his action, Mr Lobov claims that he has been the subject of a barrage of harassing, intimidating and defamatory posts by McGregor on his Titter account.

Mr Lobov claims that the most damaging post about him on Mr McGregor's Twitter account, @TheNotoriousMMA is where he is allegedly referred to in a song sung by Mr McGregor as being a "rat".

The High Court heard that Mr Lobov claims that the defendant's posts about him arise from other legal proceedings brought by him against Mr McGregor over a purported multi-million euro whiskey deal.

As a result of the posts, Mr Lobov seeks an order under Section 33 of the 2009 Defamation Act prohibiting Mr McGregor from publishing any further posts similar to those allegedly published by Mr McGregor on Twitter on November 26 last.

The 36-year-old Russian national also seeks an order requiring the defendant, or any other person who has notice of the proceedings, to cease and desist from making any similar posts on social media to those complained of.

Mr Lobov, who is represented by Andrew Walker SC instructed by solicitor Dermot McNamara, further seeks an order requiring the defendant to take down and remove any of the allegedly defamatory posts on Twitter or on any other form of social media.

Mr McGregor was not present in court on Thursday morning but lawyers on his behalf opposed the application.

Conor McGregor's claims

His counsel Remy Farrell SC, instructed by solicitor Michael Staines said the matter, including the application for a Section 33 order, was "wholly unsustainable", raised issues concerning the freedom of speech and expression and that there were other alternative remedies available to Mr Lobov.

He added that both parties in this dispute are MMA fighters and that Mr Lobov was not happy that Mr McGregor was being mean in the posts about the plaintiff. Counsel said that both were MMA fighters, and in that sport "trash talk" between rivals was commonplace.

Counsel accepted that while Mr McGregor has not yet sworn a statement in reply to the application before the court, Mr McGregor is seeking time to do so.

Counsel said that the context of the comments complained of is relevant. given that the parties are involved in a dispute over the sale of a whiskey brand, which remains pending before the courts.

Arising out of that action, counsel said Mr McGregor may well have a defence to the claim of defamation including that his remarks are the truth and can be justified.

Artem Lobov's claims

Seeking the injunction, Mr Walker said that it is his client's case that the defendant has no defence to the application, and that the orders sought by Mr Lobov should be granted by the court.

His client has not received any response from Mr McGregor regarding his complaints about the posts, nor a sworn statement formally opposing the injunction application.

In his submissions, Mr Walker did not accept that the comments made were merely unfair and upsetting to his client. The "uncontrolled" posts by Mr McGregor about his client. Mr Walker said, are highly damaging to Mr Lobov. and are also in breach of Twitter's own code of conduct.

In reply to the judge, counsel said they were much more serious and damaging to his client compared to the sort of posts one might see on social media when a professional soccer player transfers to a rival club.

Counsel said that there could well be another barrage of statements from Mr McGregor about his client irrespective of what the court decides in this aspect of the proceedings.