King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

Error al cargar el documento

Heading
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the pub
THE LIBEL CLAIM
THE PI CLAIMS
THE OVERLAP
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME
MATTERS RAISED AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING
THE PARTIES' POSITION IN SUMMARY
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Stay of proceedings
Split Trials
Limitation
THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS
The PI claimants
Mr Odey
CONCLUSIONS - THE STAY APPLICATION AND THE JOINT TRIAL PROPOSAL
CONCLUSIONS - THE SPLIT TRIAL APPLICATION
Whether the prospective advantage of saving the costs of an investigation if liability is not established outweighs the likelihood of increased aggregate cost if liability is established and a further
What are likely to be the advantages and disadvantages in terms of trial preparation and management
Would a split trial impose unnecessary inconvenience or strain on witnesses who may be required in both trials
Would a single trial to deal with both liability and quantum lead to excessive complexity and diffusion of issues, or place an undue burden on the judge hearing the case
Would a split trial cause prejudice to one or other party
Are there difficulties in defining an appropriate split, or is a clean split possible
What weight is to be attached to the risk of duplication, delay and the disadvantages of the bifurcated appellate process
Generally, what is perceived to offer the best course to ensure that the whole matter is adjudicated as fairly, quickly and effectively as possible
CONCLUSIONS - SCOPE OF THE JOINT TRIAL
The PI Claims
Conclusions