Judge dismisses case against Conor McGregor, ruling tweets are part of MMA trash talk

Mr Justice Simons said he would listen to McGregor and retired MMA fighter Artem Lobov as to the question of costs in January

The disputed tweets were posted on the Twitter  account of Conor McGregor (pictured) in November. File picture

The High Court has rejected an application by retired MMA fighter Artem Lobov for orders requiring Conor McGregor to take down allegedly defamatory social media posts about the Dublin-based Russian.

In his ruling Mr Justice Garrett Simons, said that he was not satisfied that the statements made by Mr McGregor on social media where Mr Lobov is called "a rat" are "clearly defamatory".

To call a person a rat without more does not fulfill the definition of defamation, the judge held, before he dismissed the application for varioius orders against Mr McGregor. Mr Lobov had sought orders including an injunction requiring Mr McGregor to remove the material from his Twitter account.

Mr Lobov claims that he has been the subject of a barrage of harassing, intimidating and defamatory posts by McGregor on his Twitter account. Mr McGregor had opposed the application.

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.

Mr Lobov had sought 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 had also sought 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 further sought 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.

Judge's ruling

The judge said in his ruling that he was satisfied that Mr Lobov had failed to meet the first limb of the legal test required that would allow the court grant an order under Section 33 of the 2009 Defamation Act against Mr McGregor. Mr Justice Simons said Mr Lobov claims that by being called a rat meant that the plaintiff was an informer, a person who betrayed somebody, a person who reveals confidential information, and a person who double-crosses.

The statement complained of in this case appeared on the Twitter account of "a world-famous" MMA fighter, about another MMA fighter now retired from competition, he said.

"Trash talking" is part of that activity, the judge said, adding that Mr Lobov was also the subject of various insults, including being called a "rat", that were posted on the Twitter account.

The judge said that he was not satisfied that a read of this post would give the same meaning to the word "rat" as claimed by Mr Lobov's lawyers in their letter of complaint to the defendant. It was for more likely that a reader would see the tweets as "part of a rant by a trash-talking MMA fighter," he said.

The term "rat" was merely one of "a series of pejorative terms" applied to Mr Lobov, and was "not necessarily even the most insulting." The judge added that the word "rat" when used in isolation is no more than a term of vulgar abuse. More is required in order to suceed in a defamation action, the judge said.

Mr Lobov, he said, had not persuaded the court that the tweets complained about are clearly defamatory, and there was no reasonable basis for apprehending that the tweets would injure Mr Lobov’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

"No reasonable member of society would attach any significance to these tweets," he added.

Mr Justice Simons also added that while he was of the belief that Mr McGregor was entitled to recover his costs of the application, he would hear the parties as to the question of costs in January.