Eubank Jr and Frank Warren urged to mediate libel claim by High Court judge

Boxer Chris Eubank Jr and promoter Frank Warren have been given a “strong urging” to mediate a libel claim by a High Court judge.

Mr Warren, who runs Queensberry Promotions, is suing Mr Eubank for slander and libel over allegations made at a press conference in London on September 25 last year, which he denies.

When asked why he had signed with Boxxer as his new promotional team, Mr Eubank replied: “Why Boxxer? Because every other promoter out here is a scumbag, that’s why.

“You know, you’ve got Frank Warren behind me, been lying and cheating his way through boxing for the last couple decades.

“Sued me for a couple hundred thousand a few years ago, so obviously I was never going to go with him. You know, the guy’s a scumbag.”

At a hearing on Friday, Mr Justice Jay was asked to decide the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the statements ahead of a potential trial.

But at the end of the hearing, the judge gave a “strong urging” to both sides to mediate the dispute, stating: “Our primary function is to determine disputes, so if you don’t want to mediate, fair enough, you are entitled to a trial.

“But I would have thought this type of case is capable of being mediated.”

Neither Mr Eubank nor Mr Warren attended the hearing in London on Friday.

Mr Warren, 73, has promoted several major British boxers over his career, including Ricky Hatton, Joe Calzaghe, Amir Khan and Tyson Fury.

Mr Eubank, 35, who has won 34 of his 37 fights but has never won a major world title, is set to fight Conor Benn at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium on April 26.

The court was told that the pair attended the press conference last year ahead of the lightweight title fight between Artur Beterbiev and Dmitry Bivol, with Mr Eubank fighting on the undercard.

Following the event, Boxxer released statements from Mr Eubank and Mr Warren, after the boxer also criticised other promoters.

Mr Eubank said he wished to “retract my inaccurate statements” and “offer my apologies” to Mr Warren.

Mr Warren replied: “I accept Chris’s apology and retraction. I too have said things before and apologise to him also if any criticism of him has upset him in the case.”

Richard Munden, for Mr Warren, said in written submissions for Friday’s hearing that Mr Eubank’s comments suggested “serious wrongdoing”.

In court, he said: “Accusing someone of lying and cheating their way through their profession over the last two decades is about as strong and direct a slur as can be imagined.”

In written submissions, Victoria Jolliffe, for Mr Eubank, said that Mr Warren’s case had taken a “simple sentence” and had turned it into a “complex, tautological allegation”.

She said: “The ordinary reasonable listener or viewer… would understand that Mr Eubank was speaking in plain language at an event where it is commonplace for combative but entertaining verbal blows to be traded.”