Selective Privacy Claims in Mansion Group Litigation

A deeper look at selective privacy claims in the Mansion Group litigation.

The continuing legal battle between Mansion Group and its former chief executive, Karel Manasco, is not only about contractual disagreements or disputed facts. It has become an illustration of how the justice system can be used in ways that influence public perception as much as legal outcomes.

The way this case has unfolded highlights deeper questions about selective disclosure, institutional overlaps and the balance of fairness in small jurisdictions.

In April 2025, we published The Fifth Witness Statement of Chris Block, an article examining how Mr Block’s sworn emphasis on privacy sat uneasily alongside his public conduct. This follow-up expands on that investigation, exploring how interconnected networks of corporate, legal and media influence have operated to shape the story in Mansion Group’s favour while limiting the visibility of Mr Manasco’s own case.

Privacy claims and public conduct in conflict!

Chris Block’s formal position in court was that privacy measures were necessary to prevent reputational damage. He argued for interim protections to keep certain materials away from public scrutiny until the proceedings had concluded. In principle, this is a legitimate request. The law recognises that premature publicity can cause harm.

Yet, his own behaviour has undermined that argument. On LinkedIn, a platform accessible to anyone, Mr Block has actively shared and promoted content about the litigation. These posts have not been neutral summaries. They have focused heavily on news coverage and commentary that reflects favourably on Mansion Group’s position while casting Mr Manasco in a negative light.

This is not a matter of one or two impulsive posts. The pattern spans multiple platforms and dates, including articles from the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) and Chronicle Gibraltar, as well as video links and references to court developments. All of this has been put into the public domain by a person who, at the same time, was seeking judicial orders to prevent others from publicising related information.

When public behaviour consistently contradicts a litigant’s own sworn statements, the rationale for privacy becomes harder to sustain. It begins to look less like a tool for fairness and more like an instrument for controlling the narrative.

The support network amplifying the message

One of the most striking aspects of this case is that Mr Block’s selective publicity has not occurred in isolation. It has been reinforced by other figures with historical connections to Mansion Group.

Among them is Andrew Tait, who served as the company’s General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer from 2007 to 2017. Mr Tait’s tenure covered periods now referred to in Mr Manasco’s amended defence, including matters involving licensing oversight, corporate governance and regulatory compliance.

His public endorsements of Mr Block’s posts, therefore, carry weight beyond that of an ordinary social media interaction. They signal alignment with a particular version of events and add legitimacy to Mansion Group’s chosen framing.

The combined effect of a key witness promoting selected updates and a former senior officer validating them is significant. Messages gain more traction when they are echoed by figures with insider knowledge.

This repetition, across professional networks, helps entrench one perspective while the opposing view remains largely unseen due to the privacy restrictions in place.

The intersection of legal advocacy and media governance

A further complication is the dual role of Mansion Group’s legal counsel, James Montado. As a partner at ISOLAS LLP, he represents Mansion Group in these proceedings. At the same time, he serves on the board of GBC, Gibraltar’s public broadcaster. There is no suggestion of unlawful conduct. However, such an overlap inevitably raises questions about the appearance of independence.

Editorial impartiality is a cornerstone of public trust in media. Even where no actual interference occurs, the perception that a broadcaster’s governance includes someone directly involved in a high-profile legal dispute risks undermining confidence. In small jurisdictions, where professional circles are tightly connected, the need for clear separation between media governance and active litigation is even more acute.

GBC’s reporting has, in practice, devoted substantial attention to Mansion Group’s claims while giving far less coverage to Mr Manasco’s defence. The defence reportedly contains detailed allegations about governance failures, licensing irregularities and possible judicial bias.

Yet those allegations have not been afforded the same prominence in public reporting as Mansion Group’s assertions.

How selective disclosure shapes the record

The imbalance in coverage is not purely a media issue. It is closely tied to the way privacy orders have been applied. The court has granted Mansion Group’s requests for interim confidentiality, meaning the amended defence has not been released publicly. This has kept Mr Manasco’s detailed case, including his challenges to Mansion Group’s regulatory and operational history, out of the public eye.

Meanwhile, Mansion Group has been able to share elements of the proceedings that support its position. This selective disclosure allows one side to present its arguments publicly without having to contend with equally visible counter-arguments. In any adversarial process, such an arrangement distorts the public understanding of the case.

What is at stake is not only the fairness to the parties but the integrity of the judicial process as viewed from outside. If court orders are applied in a way that lets one litigant manage public relations while restricting the other’s voice, the appearance of equality before the law suffers.

The exposure of one party over another

Perhaps the most telling contrast is in how personal and reputational exposure has been distributed. Mr Manasco and his family have had personal details, financial information and allegations (none of which have been tested in court) published in multiple outlets. Some of these publications appeared very soon after related court filings, which raises the legitimate question of whether there was a coordinated release of information.

By comparison, Mansion Group’s internal practices and historical decisions, including those referenced in the amended defence, have largely avoided similar public scrutiny. In effect, one party’s alleged shortcomings are highly visible, while the others remain behind procedural barriers.

This imbalance turns the litigation into a one-sided reputational contest. The party without the ability to disclose its own detailed account is forced to defend itself under restrictions, while facing ongoing public commentary from those with the benefit of privacy protections.

The wider context beyond this case

Although the facts here are specific to Gibraltar, the dynamics are familiar in other small jurisdictions. Legal, corporate and media networks often intersect and those overlaps can influence how disputes are presented to the public. When privacy measures are enforced in a way that benefits one side more than the other, the risk is not only to the fairness of a single case but to the jurisdiction’s wider reputation for impartial justice.

The online gambling sector is particularly sensitive to perceptions of regulatory integrity. Operators licensed in small jurisdictions are scrutinised internationally, both by regulators in other countries and by advocacy groups concerned with compliance and governance. Any suggestion that disputes within the sector are being handled unevenly will attract external criticism.

The principle that must be defended

There is no allegation that Mr Block, Mr Tait, Mr Montado or Mansion Group have acted unlawfully. The concern is that the process, as it has operated, has allowed reputational management to take precedence over transparency. When that happens, public confidence in both the courts and the media is weakened.

The principle that privacy should protect the judicial process, not shape the public record, must be upheld. This requires consistency in how orders are applied and vigilance against perceived conflicts of interest in media governance. The public should be able to trust that all parties in a dispute are subject to the same standards of disclosure and that no side enjoys an unspoken advantage.

Conclusion

The Mansion Group litigation against Karel Manasco continues to raise questions that go beyond the original dispute. The combination of privacy claims that are undermined by public commentary, reinforcement from former insiders, overlapping legal and media roles and selective disclosure has created an uneven landscape.

This is not about the merits of the underlying claims or defences. It is about whether the process has been even-handed and whether the public has been allowed to see the full picture. Until these concerns are addressed, the case will remain an example of how procedural tools can be adapted into instruments of influence, with consequences that stretch far beyond the individuals involved.

Our earlier article, “The Fifth Witness Statement of Chris Block”, which examined the contradictions in Mr Block’s privacy claims, can be read here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fifth-witness-statement-chris-block-maltamedia-lcskf/.

FAQs

What is the Mansion Group litigation about?
The case involves Mansion Group and its former CEO, Karel Manasco, focusing on contractual disputes and broader questions of privacy, media influence, and public perception.

Why are selective privacy claims significant in this case?
Selective privacy claims allow one party to limit public access to certain legal materials, potentially shaping public perception and influencing the narrative.

Who is Chris Block in the Mansion Group case?
Chris Block is a key witness whose witness statements emphasize privacy, yet his public social media activity has raised questions about consistency and selective disclosure.

How has public conduct conflicted with sworn privacy statements?
Chris Block has actively shared and promoted content favorable to Mansion Group on LinkedIn and other platforms, contradicting his sworn claims for confidentiality.

What role did Andrew Tait play in supporting Mansion Group?
Andrew Tait, former General Counsel, publicly endorsed Chris Block’s posts, reinforcing Mansion Group’s narrative and lending credibility due to his insider knowledge.

How does media overlap affect the case?
Mansion Group’s counsel, James Montado, also serves on the board of Gibraltar’s public broadcaster (GBC), creating potential perception issues regarding editorial independence.

Why is selective disclosure considered problematic?
It allows one side to share favorable materials publicly while restricting the opposing side, creating imbalance and potentially undermining public trust in the judicial process.

What impact has selective publicity had on Mr Manasco?
Personal and financial details about Mr Manasco and his family have been widely published, whereas Mansion Group’s internal practices remain largely shielded.

Does the case raise concerns beyond Gibraltar?
Yes, it highlights how corporate, legal, and media networks in small jurisdictions can influence public perception, with implications for regulatory integrity in sectors like online gambling.

What principle should guide privacy in litigation?
Privacy should protect the judicial process, not manipulate the public record. Consistent application of orders and vigilance against conflicts of interest are essential for public trust.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is based on information from publicly accessible sources, court filings and editorial analysis. No allegation of unlawful conduct is made against any individual or organisation named. Interpretations reflect the editorial team’s understanding of the available material and are intended to contribute to public discussion on governance, media independence and judicial process. Any party wishing to provide clarification or a formal response is invited to do so and such responses will be published in full and without alteration.