BoxRec

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 02:35**

Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE and Sky Sports Ltd have been added as defendants in the Boxxer vs John Wischusen case, in which Boxxer is alleging breach of contract.

No idea who Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE is. Apparently some businesswoman who has won various awards. Her Wikipedia says she started out as Chris Eubank Sr's PR girl some decades ago before going on to build several multi million £ companies.

I'm amazed they've gone against Sky directly. That's a big bear to be poking.

https://caseboard.io/cases/7fbb60ee-7b0 ... 333e3abb10

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 03:06**

johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 02:35 Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Wouldja ?

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 07:46**

Looking at that link - it appears Boxxer have appointed a small firm (website is basic and only lists one person working for them) - so I don't fancy their chances up against SKY or even the firm that Wischausen has appointed.

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 09:40**

dbf wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 07:46 Looking at that link - it appears Boxxer have appointed a small firm (website is basic and only lists one person working for them) - so I don't fancy their chances up against SKY or even the firm that Wischausen

Shalom will win hands doewn

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 10:20**

Spud what is it with you just constantly being like a cheerleader for Boxxer /Shalom?

Are you even on the payroll or are you just doing this for free? Or is it because you sometimes get a text back and that makes you feel part of it?

Are you legally qualified? Are you a contract law specialist? Tell us why it is, legally, that "Shalom will win hands down"?

Last time you were talking legalities about this case, if turned out you didn't know how injunctions worked and how an injunction being granted or not had no bearing on the outcome of a case.

So I'm confused how you're suddenly making such sweeping declarations about a case which hasn't been tried yet. I'm assuming you've read and heard all the evidence and know all the relevant legislation..?

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 12:47**

johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 02:35 No idea who Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE is. Apparently some businesswoman who has won various awards. Her Wikipedia says she started out as Chris Eubank Sr's PR girl some decades ago before going on to build several multi million £ companies.

I'm amazed they've gone against Sky directly. That's a big bear to be poking.

https://caseboard.io/cases/7fbb60ee-7b0 ... 333e3abb10

Dang! Blast from the past - I fondly remember the BBC following her about for a mini-documentary while she was still working for Sr. Spent the whole time blaring charmlessly about how brilliant and hardworking she was in the style of a particularly obnoxious Apprentice contestant. The highlight was a shot of her on a treadmill, half-yelling "I AM THE EPITOME OF FEMININITY" in response to some apparent mysterious perception that she might not be very feminine. My brother and I fell about laughing.

Anyway, now Sky are involved, I expect a security for costs application to land in Boxxer's inbox any day now

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 16:19**

I’m sure she was involved with Howard Eastman and I met her once or twice back in the day …..

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 17:40**

dookus wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 12:47
johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 02:35 No idea who Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE is. Apparently some businesswoman who has won various awards. Her Wikipedia says she started out as Chris Eubank Sr's PR girl some decades ago before going on to build several multi million £ companies.

I'm amazed they've gone against Sky directly. That's a big bear to be poking.

https://caseboard.io/cases/7fbb60ee-7b0 ... 333e3abb10

Anyway, now Sky are involved, I expect a security for costs application to land in Boxxer's inbox any day now

Good shout

According to the timeline there's been a costs hearing /decision already, but that was pre Sky being named as a defendant.

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 17:52**

Frostieballs wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 16:19 I’m sure she was involved with Howard Eastman and I met her once or twice back in the day …..

Correct. I believe she was working with Barry Hearn at Matchroom as well,hence the Eubank snr/Wichusen connection.

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 18:25**

Frostieballs wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 16:19 I’m sure she was involved with Howard Eastman and I met her once or twice back in the day …..

Correct

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 18:56**

I do not work for Ben Shalom

Met ben at ricky hattons funeral

We have spoke several times.

It is my personal opinion that ben will l
Win comfortably

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 19:20**

johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 17:40
dookus wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 12:47
johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 02:35 No idea who Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE is. Apparently some businesswoman who has won various awards. Her Wikipedia says she started out as Chris Eubank Sr's PR girl some decades ago before going on to build several multi million £ companies.

I'm amazed they've gone against Sky directly. That's a big bear to be poking.

https://caseboard.io/cases/7fbb60ee-7b0 ... 333e3abb10

Anyway, now Sky are involved, I expect a security for costs application to land in Boxxer's inbox any day now
Good shout

According to the timeline there's been a costs hearing /decision already, but that was pre Sky being named as a defendant.

Correct

It is also true many cases are clear but are lost
Because of delays

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 19:28**

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 18:56 I do not work for Ben Shalom

Met ben at ricky hattons funeral

We have spoke several times.

It is my personal opinion that ben will l
Win comfortably

OK and that opinion is based on..... what exactly?

Evidence bundles? Legislation? Case law?

Like what exactly is it you've gone through which makes you so sure?

Or is it just that you occasionally get a text back from Shalom, and that's enough?

If you've not been through all the documents and you don't know the relevant points of law, I can't see what it is you're basing your strong opinions on, unless you're just parroting the plaintiff. Surely not?

Posted: **10 Apr 2026, 19:31**

Im lost

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 03:26**

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 19:31 Im lost

You said "It is my personal opinion that ben will Win comfortably"

I'm asking what makes you so certain.

Because if it's just the plaintiff telling you he's going to win, that's not really enough lol

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 03:54**

It is my personal opinion that I haven’t a clue but it’s more interesting than some of the recent boxing cards

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 04:00**

johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 17:40
dookus wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 12:47
johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 02:35 No idea who Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE is. Apparently some businesswoman who has won various awards. Her Wikipedia says she started out as Chris Eubank Sr's PR girl some decades ago before going on to build several multi million £ companies.

I'm amazed they've gone against Sky directly. That's a big bear to be poking.

https://caseboard.io/cases/7fbb60ee-7b0 ... 333e3abb10

Anyway, now Sky are involved, I expect a security for costs application to land in Boxxer's inbox any day now
Good shout

According to the timeline there's been a costs hearing /decision already, but that was pre Sky being named as a defendant.

That was a cost budgeting hearing (i.e. where the parties set out how much they expect their costs to be for each stage of the process and the Court approves budgets). It's impossible for them to hand down a proper decision on costs until the substantive dispute is determined at trial / by consent order (except possibly for costs of the injunction against Wichhusen. But those costs could also be determined later.)

Sky would have to make such an application sharpish.

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 06:49**

dookus wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 04:00
johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 17:40
dookus wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 12:47
Anyway, now Sky are involved, I expect a security for costs application to land in Boxxer's inbox any day now
Good shout

According to the timeline there's been a costs hearing /decision already, but that was pre Sky being named as a defendant.
That was a cost budgeting hearing (i.e. where the parties set out how much they expect their costs to be for each stage of the process and the Court approves budgets). It's impossible for them to hand down a proper decision on costs until the substantive dispute is determined at trial / by consent order (except possibly for costs of the injunction against Wichhusen. But those costs could also be determined later.)

Sky would have to make such an application sharpish.

We thank our learned friend for this useful insight.

The case is listed as breach of contract. But that was aimed at Wischusen, he was the only defendant initially.

I wonder if they had a contract with this MBE woman as well. Must have, right? Otherwise it would be something more like tortious interference, if she was being accused of meddling from outside a contract position?

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 07:08**

johnmanchester wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 06:49
dookus wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 04:00
johnmanchester wrote: ↑10 Apr 2026, 17:40

Good shout

According to the timeline there's been a costs hearing /decision already, but that was pre Sky being named as a defendant.
That was a cost budgeting hearing (i.e. where the parties set out how much they expect their costs to be for each stage of the process and the Court approves budgets). It's impossible for them to hand down a proper decision on costs until the substantive dispute is determined at trial / by consent order (except possibly for costs of the injunction against Wichhusen. But those costs could also be determined later.)

Sky would have to make such an application sharpish.
We thank our learned friend for this useful insight.

The case is listed as breach of contract. But that was aimed at Wischusen, he was the only defendant initially.

I wonder if they had a contract with this MBE woman as well. Must have, right? Otherwise it would be something more like tortious interference, if she was being accused of meddling from outside a contract position?

Is our learned friend in the room with us?

Yes, either there's a contract with her or the claim is probably for some variety of tortious interference.

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 07:56**

John Manchester you try desperately to come across as an expert.

It took sometime to find out who you are

Interesting

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 08:08**

Spud you keep replying without answering any of the questions you're being asked. Why?

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 08:10**

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 07:56 John Manchester you try desperately to come across as an expert.

It took sometime to find out who you are

Interesting

I could have told you quite quickly to narrow your search to men named John in the Greater Manchester area. That could have saved some time.

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 08:10**

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 08:22**

Spud MK2 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 07:56 John Manchester you try desperately to come across as an expert.

It took sometime to find out who you are

Interesting

You've already said this before, about 6+ months ago you posted something like "it took me just a few phone calls to find out who you are".

As scary now as it was then.

Real gangster shit.

Posted: **11 Apr 2026, 08:23**

jameswilson wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 08:10
Spud MK2 wrote: ↑11 Apr 2026, 07:56 John Manchester you try desperately to come across as an expert.

It took sometime to find out who you are

Interesting
I could have told you quite quickly to narrow your search to men named John in the Greater Manchester area. That could have saved some time.

Unless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester,_New_Hampshire

BoxRec

Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MByo

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE

Re: Boxxer suing Lysa Shaa Wasmund MBE