Unresolved imbalance in the Mansion Group litigation!

Unresolved imbalance in the Mansion Group litigation!

Old concerns, no real progress…

Back in April 2025 we published a detailed investigation into Chris Block’s fifth witness statement. That piece highlighted how Mr Block’s sworn pleas for strict privacy protections inside the courtroom contrasted sharply with his repeated public activity outside of it.

At the time we pointed out that this inconsistency risked undermining the very principle of fairness that privacy orders are supposed to defend. Instead of shielding both parties equally, they seemed to be operating as a tool for one party to shape perception while silencing the other.

Several months later and despite the serious issues raised, little appears to have changed. If anything, the contradictions have become even more entrenched. The same patterns of selective publicity, bolstered by allies with historic ties to Mansion Group, continue to unfold.

Meanwhile, the courts have not recalibrated their approach, meaning that the imbalance we first exposed still defines the process. The troubling conclusion is that our warnings have gone unheeded. Concerns that should have triggered reflection or even reform within the system have instead been ignored, leaving the uneven playing field intact.

Public narrative versus private restrictions!

The most striking feature of this litigation remains the contrast between what is permitted in public and what is suppressed under the banner of privacy. Mr Block continues to play an active role in shaping the story in Mansion Group’s favour through LinkedIn and other public platforms. These interventions are not neutral observations.

They selectively highlight reports and commentary that present Mansion Group as the wronged party, while framing Mr Manasco in an unfavourable light.

At the same time, the privacy orders secured by Mansion Group mean that the amended defence (which reportedly contains serious allegations about governance and regulatory failures) has not been made available for public inspection.

The result is that Mr Manasco’s ability to communicate his case openly remains curtailed. This disparity creates the perception that one party is entitled to run a campaign in the court of public opinion while the other is confined to silence.

For observers, the optics are damaging. It no longer looks like a level contest between equal litigants. It looks like a carefully managed narrative with legal tools being used to secure advantage outside as well as inside the courtroom.

The role of insiders and networks?

The imbalance is amplified further by the presence of historic insiders who lend authority to Mansion Group’s framing of events. Andrew Tait, who served as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer for a decade, has consistently endorsed Mr Block’s posts.

This is not the trivial behaviour of a casual bystander clicking a ‘like’. It is a deliberate show of alignment by a former senior officer whose tenure coincided with many of the events now under scrutiny in Mr Manasco’s amended defence.

Endorsements from such a figure carry symbolic weight. They signal that the company’s past leadership stands behind its current legal posture, lending an aura of continuity and credibility. For observers, the impression is of a coordinated narrative where former and current affiliates work in concert to ensure that only one side of the story receives validation.

In effect, this closes the circle: the witness promotes Mansion Group’s preferred interpretation, the former insider validates it and the restrictions on disclosure prevent the alternative account from being heard. What should be a balanced contest of facts becomes instead a controlled echo chamber.

Media governance under strain!

Adding to this problematic picture is the continuing overlap between Mansion Group’s legal representation and the governance of Gibraltar’s public broadcaster. James Montado, a partner at ISOLAS LLP, remains both legal counsel for Mansion Group in these proceedings and a board member of the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation.

There is no allegation of unlawful conduct, but the dual role is inherently troubling. The separation between those who advocate in court and those who govern the editorial independence of a broadcaster ought to be clear and unambiguous.

Yet in Gibraltar, where professional and social circles are small, these overlaps are particularly pronounced. GBC’s coverage has often given prominence to Mansion Group’s narrative, devoting detailed airtime to its claims, while offering far less space to the counter-arguments advanced by Mr Manasco. The perception created is one of partiality, whether intended or not.

Once again, the appearance matters as much as the reality. A jurisdiction that wishes to be seen as impartial and transparent cannot afford to allow doubts to arise about whether its public media is structurally independent from ongoing litigation involving its own directors.

This is not simply a reputational issue for those directly involved. It is a systemic concern that affects confidence in the jurisdiction’s governance as a whole.

Courts and selective disclosure…

The court’s continued approach to disclosure remains central to this imbalance. By granting Mansion Group interim confidentiality over the amended defence, while simultaneously allowing the company and its affiliates to highlight aspects of the case favourable to their position, the court has unintentionally created an uneven playing field.

One side enjoys the luxury of controlled publicity; the other is restricted to silence!

This is not a theoretical concern. It has real consequences for public understanding. Reports emerge in the press that highlight the company’s claims, but readers are denied access to the detailed defence that might challenge those claims.

As a result, the record is incomplete and skewed. For the judiciary, this poses a serious problem. The appearance of fairness is as important as fairness itself.

When disclosure rules create the impression of bias, they corrode confidence not only in the case at hand but in the wider legal system. For Gibraltar, a jurisdiction already under international scrutiny because of its role in the gambling sector, the reputational risks are obvious and growing.

Unequal exposure of reputations!

Perhaps the most glaring feature of this litigation is the uneven exposure of personal and professional reputations. Allegations against Mr Manasco and even his family (none proven in court) have appeared in multiple outlets, sometimes with striking speed after related filings.

These details include sensitive financial and personal matters that no individual should see circulated without the opportunity for fair context or rebuttal.

In contrast, Mansion Group’s own historical decisions and internal practices, some of which are directly referenced in the amended defence, have remained shielded by confidentiality orders. The result is that the reputational risk is distributed unequally.

One side is left exposed to public speculation and commentary, the other remains largely insulated. This imbalance does not merely affect the individuals involved. It casts doubt on whether the system itself applies principles consistently.

Observers could reasonably ask whether privacy is being used as a shield for corporate actors while individuals are left vulnerable.

Why Karel Manasco deserves better?

In all of this, Mr Manasco stands out as the party most disadvantaged by the current framework. His ability to defend himself in public has been curtailed, even as allegations against him circulate freely. His amended defence, which reportedly sets out detailed concerns about governance failures and licensing irregularities, is not available for scrutiny.

This leaves him in the unenviable position of fighting a reputational battle with no tools to present his side.

The situation is deeply unfair. A legal process should be designed to ensure that both parties have an equal opportunity to present their case, not to allow one side to monopolise the public narrative. Mr Manasco deserves better.

His case deserves to be heard in full, without artificial barriers that allow his opponents to control the story while he remains silenced. Until that imbalance is addressed, the litigation cannot credibly be described as even-handed.

A wider warning for small jurisdictions

Although the immediate dispute takes place in Gibraltar, its implications are far wider. Small jurisdictions with close-knit professional networks face particular risks when legal, corporate and media circles overlap.

The appearance of partiality can quickly take root, even if no deliberate impropriety occurs. Once that perception forms, it does not remain confined within the jurisdiction.

It is picked up by regulators abroad, by advocacy groups and by foreign courts that scrutinise the fairness of proceedings before deciding whether to recognise or enforce judgments.

For Gibraltar, the stakes are especially high. As a jurisdiction heavily reliant on the online gambling sector, its reputation for impartial justice is critical. If disputes within that sector appear to be managed unevenly or if privacy is seen as a selective tool for corporate image control, the international response will not be forgiving.

The wider message is simple: fairness must be seen to be done!

Without that, the damage will extend beyond a single case to the jurisdiction’s credibility as a whole…

Final Thoughts and Conclusion

We raised these concerns months ago, expecting that the contradictions would be addressed. Yet nothing meaningful has changed. Privacy continues to be applied selectively, insiders continue to validate Mansion Group’s chosen narrative and media governance remains entangled with active litigation. Most damaging of all, Karel Manasco is still prevented from presenting his defence openly.

The effect is corrosive. It undermines trust not only in this particular case but in Gibraltar’s legal system more broadly. Fairness must be seen as well as delivered. When one party is permitted to manage publicity while the other is silenced, when former insiders endorse that narrative and when a public broadcaster is overseen by a lawyer representing one of the litigants, the appearance of impartiality collapses.

This is not a matter of minor perception. It shapes how the jurisdiction is viewed internationally, especially in a sector like online gambling where credibility is constantly under scrutiny. Each passing month without reform deepens the impression that procedure can be adapted into a tool of influence rather than a mechanism of justice. That impression will not stay local. Regulators, foreign courts and international observers will take note.

The lesson is clear. Structural reform is urgently needed. Privacy must not be used as a shield for corporations while individuals are left exposed. Media governance must be demonstrably independent. Above all, both parties must be able to present their cases equally in the public sphere.

Until these principles are restored, the Mansion Group litigation will remain unresolved in more ways than one. Its legacy will not be the merits of the claims or the defence but the doubts it casts on whether Gibraltar can deliver transparent and impartial justice.

FAQs

What is the main issue in the Mansion Group litigation?
The case highlights concerns about selective privacy orders, insider influence, and unequal ability for parties to present their case publicly.

Why is Chris Block’s witness statement controversial?
Chris Block sought strict privacy protections in court while actively shaping public narratives outside of it, raising fairness concerns.

How has Mansion Group influenced public perception?
Through public posts, endorsements from former insiders, and favorable media coverage, Mansion Group has shaped the narrative in its favor.

Why is Karel Manasco at a disadvantage?
Manasco’s amended defence remains confidential, restricting his ability to respond publicly to allegations circulated in the press.

What role did Andrew Tait play in the case?
As a former Mansion Group executive, Tait publicly endorsed Mansion Group’s legal narrative, reinforcing the perception of coordinated influence.

Why is James Montado’s dual role significant?
Montado is both Mansion Group’s legal counsel and a board member of Gibraltar’s public broadcaster, raising concerns about impartiality in coverage.

How has media governance been affected?
GBC has been criticized for giving prominence to Mansion Group’s claims while offering limited space to counterarguments, creating a perception of bias.

What are the risks of selective disclosure in this case?
When one side controls publicity while the other remains restricted, it undermines the appearance of fairness and damages trust in the judiciary.

Why does this case matter beyond Gibraltar?
As Gibraltar is a hub for online gambling, concerns about fairness and governance could influence regulators, courts, and stakeholders internationally.

What reforms are being suggested?
Observers call for structural reforms to ensure privacy orders are applied equally, media governance is independent, and both parties have equal opportunity to present their cases.

Disclaimer

This article has been prepared using information drawn exclusively from publicly accessible sources, including court filings, registry documents, media coverage and independent editorial analysis. It does not allege, imply or suggest that any individual or organisation named has acted unlawfully, improperly or in breach of duty.

References to persons, companies or institutions are made solely for the purpose of examining structural, procedural and governance issues arising from the litigation described. Interpretations are provided to highlight systemic risks that may exist in the interaction between privacy orders, media oversight and judicial process.

The content is intended to contribute to informed public discussion and should not be read as an accusation of misconduct. Any party referred to is welcome to provide clarification or response for publication in full.