B&M Sues Morrisons Over Alleged 'Intellectual Property Infringement and Breach of Confidence'

B&M Retail has launched High Court proceedings against supermarket giant WM Morrison Supermarkets and one of its senior buyers over alleged 'intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence', court records show.

According to filings in the Intellectual Property List, B&M Retail Limited issued the claim on 29 October 2026 against WM Morrison Supermarkets Limited and Simon Buckley. The Independent reported on 2 November that Morrisons' website identifies Buckley as a senior buyer of general merchandise.

The action comes as the discount retailer continues to defend a separate £13.8 million supplier claim and reportedly considers acquiring selected Poundland stores.

Copyright and Design Rights at Centre of Claim

The Morrisons case, numbered IL-2026-000166, appears in the Intellectual Property List as a Part 7 claim concerning copyright and design rights.

HGF Law represents B&M, while Eversheds Sutherland represents both defendants, according to the court record. The listing identifies the parties and category of proceedings but does not explain the alleged conduct.

In a statement cited by The Independent, a B&M spokesperson confirmed that the company had begun proceedings over alleged 'intellectual property infringement and breach of confidence'.

'We invest significantly in developing our products and protecting our confidential business information and will take appropriate action where we believe those rights have been infringed,' the spokesperson added.

The company declined to elaborate because the matter was before the courts. The Independent said a hearing had yet to take place.

The claims remain allegations, and the available case listing does not identify the products or confidential material involved, or state what financial compensation or other remedy B&M seeks.

Separate Supplier Dispute Seeks £13.8 Million

B&M is also defending proceedings brought by The Skinny Food Co, which alleges that the retailer breached agreements by removing its products from sale or substantially cutting purchases.

MarketScreener reported on 9 April 2026, citing Press Association reporting on court documents, that Skinny sought at least £13.8 million in damages. The supplier began proceedings in February, with the claim form filed on 13 February.

Skinny alleges that B&M removed it as a supplier in 2021 and 2025 in breach of applicable rules. Its lawyers linked the earlier decision to failed investment negotiations with the Arora family, which ran B&M at the time.

According to those allegations, Robin Arora threatened that he could 'ruin' Skinny. The supplier characterises the purchasing decisions as retaliation over the collapsed investment discussions.

B&M disputes that account. In a defence reported by MarketScreener on 8 May, the retailer said its decisions reflected genuine commercial reasons and challenged both the allegations and the damages sought.

Its lawyers also maintained that Arora acted in a personal capacity and denied that his communications contained threats.

An October Order Adds the Groceries Regulator

The supplied filing history shows that the supplier dispute continued through October. An order approved by His Honour Judge Williams on 14 October and filed on 20 October directed that the Groceries Code Adjudicator be added as an intervener.

Earlier entries record a defence, a response to a request for further information and a reply. The October entry concerns participation in the proceedings, rather than a decision resolving the supplier's damages claim.

Poundland Stores Also Draw B&M's Interest

Separately, Sky News reported on 19 October that B&M had expressed interest in acquiring a small number of Poundland stores as part of the sale process organised by Alvarez & Marsal.

The Range, Lidl and the owner of Poundstretcher, Fortress Investment Group, were also reportedly interested in individual sites.

The news channel said at least two offers sought to buy Poundland outright, including a proposal from Ireland's Martin Property Group that Poundland's executive team reportedly favoured.