Entain Plc is subject to a High Court reporting restrictions order dated 17 June 2026 governing coverage of six linked claims in the Commercial Court’s Financial List before Mr Justice Trower.
The order in Various Claimants Listed in the Schedules to the Claims v Entain Plc discharged an interim restriction imposed on 16 June and replaced it retrospectively from the start of the first case management conference.
It followed an application dated 3 June by Kenneth Alexander, Richard Cooper, Lee Feldman and Robert Hoskin, identified in the order as the “Charged Individuals”, seeking to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to related criminal proceedings known as R v Masterton and R v Hoskin.
Made under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the order prevents reporting of the application beyond what appears in the order and its associated public ruling. It also postpones reports referring to allegations of bribery, money laundering or fraudulent conduct within Entain or for its benefit, subject to an exception for material contained in specified public court rulings and judgments.
The permitted public context includes the approved summary in R v Entain dated 5 December 2023. That summary concerned the alleged failure by GVC Holdings Plc, Entain’s former name, to prevent bribery contrary to section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 between July 2011 and December 2017, primarily in Turkey. It also distinguished the Turkish position from gambling law in England and Wales under the Gambling Act 2005.
The Crown Prosecution Service previously entered a £615 million deferred prosecution agreement with Entain, comprising £585 million in financial penalty and disgorgement, a £20 million charitable payment and £10 million towards CPS and HM Revenue & Customs costs. The CPS stated at the time that the court made no findings against any individual.
PA Media and the Financial Times were notified of the reporting application, while the replacement order directs that it be served by the Charged Individuals’ legal representatives. Anyone affected by the order has liberty to apply on 21 days’ notice using the contact addresses specified for the Charged Individuals and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Solicitors, barristers and in-house counsel handling parallel civil and criminal proceedings must ensure that pleadings, hearing reports, client communications and international publication processes reflect the exact scope of any reporting restriction.
Legal teams may be permitted to refer to public judgments while remaining barred from repeating wider allegations aired during current proceedings. Law firms acting across disputes, investigations and corporate communications should maintain a single reporting protocol that can be updated immediately when an interim order is discharged, replaced or varied.