The Skinny Food Co has launched a High Court claim against B&M, seeking nearly £14 million in damages. This legal action comes after the company alleges it was removed from B&M’s supplier list on two separate occasions, first in 2021 and again in 2025.

Legal proceedings commenced in February, with Skinny claiming that the initial de-listing followed the collapse of investment talks. The company asserts that Robin Arora, a key figure in the negotiations, made threatening remarks that contributed to the breakdown of their relationship.

According to court filings, Skinny claims total losses from both de-listings amount to at least £16.85 million. This figure reflects a significant decline in orders from B&M, which plummeted from £10.7 million in the year ending August 2021 to approximately £3.2 million the following year.

B&M has yet to submit its defense in this case, leaving many questions unanswered. The situation escalated when B&M ceased adding new Skinny products to its shelves starting in 2023. In June 2025, the retailer formally notified Skinny that it would remove all remaining products by December 2025.

Skinny’s investment in new machinery, totaling over £235,000, was made in anticipation of increased demand from B&M. However, the drastic reduction in orders has left the company in a precarious position.

George Spalton KC, representing Skinny, stated, “B&M’s decision to de-list Skinny was motivated at least by the breakdown of the negotiations between (Mr Arora) and Skinny in respect of the proposed investment by the Arora family in Skinny, and by (Mr Arora’s) desire to make good his threat to ‘ruin’ Skinny.” This highlights the tense dynamics that have characterized their business relationship.

Robin Arora, in his own remarks, emphasized his influence over Skinny’s fate, stating, “He was ‘the only person that can make or break your business’.” His comments suggest a level of control that raises ethical questions about the nature of their negotiations.

The commercial relationship between Skinny and B&M began in late 2020, but it appears that the partnership has soured significantly since then. As the lawsuit unfolds, the implications for both companies could be profound.

Details remain unconfirmed, and the outcome of this legal battle could set a precedent for similar disputes in the retail sector.

The post Skinny Food B&M Lawsuit: A £14 Million Claim Unfolds appeared first on casinoca.

What are the implications of Eni Aluko’s recent victory in her libel case against Joey Barton? The High Court in London ruled in favor of Aluko, ordering Barton to pay £339,000 in damages and legal costs. This ruling marks a significant moment in a legal battle that has spanned two years, highlighting issues of harassment and the impact of social media on personal reputations.

Aluko’s legal action stemmed from 48 posts that Barton published on his X account between January and August 2024, which she argued amounted to harassment. The court found that Barton’s campaign against Aluko constituted an attack on multiple aspects of her life and personality. Gervase de Wilde, Aluko’s legal representative, stated, “Mr. Barton has now accepted that his campaign against Ms. Aluko amounted to harassment and that he should not have made the publications.” This acknowledgment from Barton adds weight to Aluko’s claims and underscores the seriousness of the case.

On the day before the court hearing, Barton was arrested and charged with Section 18 wounding with intent following an alleged assault on Kevin Lynch, a 51-year-old man. This incident further complicated Barton’s legal situation and may have influenced the court’s perception of his character. Despite the gravity of the circumstances, Barton did not attend the court hearing, which raised questions about his commitment to addressing the allegations against him.

Following the ruling, Aluko expressed her relief and happiness on social media, stating, “I’m glad it’s the end.” She described the legal battle as a “two-year marathon,” emphasizing the emotional toll it took on her. Aluko also thanked her legal team and supporters for their unwavering support throughout the process. The court’s decision not only vindicates Aluko but also serves as a warning to others about the potential consequences of online harassment.

The High Court case was initially stayed, meaning that proceedings were temporarily halted, but the eventual ruling has brought clarity to the situation. Barton now has seven days to request a change to the court order, which adds an element of uncertainty to the outcome. The first £100,000 of the payment is due by March 24, 2026, and it remains to be seen how Barton will respond to the court’s decision.

Aluko’s victory is significant not only for her but also for others who may find themselves in similar situations. The case highlights the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions online, particularly when those actions can cause significant harm to others. As social media continues to play a prominent role in public discourse, the implications of this ruling may resonate beyond the individuals involved.

While the court has ruled in favor of Aluko, the broader societal issues surrounding online harassment and defamation remain complex and multifaceted. As this case demonstrates, the intersection of social media and personal reputations can lead to serious legal consequences. Details remain unconfirmed regarding Barton’s next steps, but the outcome of this case will likely influence discussions about accountability in the digital age.

The post Eni Aluko Wins Libel Case Against Joey Barton appeared first on casinoca.