[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

In terms of the defences to the Libel Claim, I consider that the joint trial should encompass the section 4 defence as well as the section 2 defence. I am mindful of the understandable wishes of The FT and the PI claimants that the joint trial be heard as soon as is reasonably possible. However, it appears to me that there is likely to be a significant degree of overlap in terms of disclosure and witness evidence. Materials from the journalists’ investigation are likely to be relevant to both of these defences, as, potentially, are the ways that accounts were obtained from the various complainants. Accordingly, I do not consider that hiving off the section 4 defence will significantly reduce the scale of the disclosure exercise, or the preparation of The FT's witness evidence.

As I have noted, Mr Millar stressed that the timescales included in his client's draft order in relation to a trial on liability (on both defences) were realistic and that this was because The FT was determined that these matters should come to trial as soon as possible. It therefore seems to me that including the section 4 defence, which will primarily rest on The FT's disclosure and evidence, rather than Mr Odey's disclosure in evidence, will not significantly elongate the time needed for the preparatory steps to trial. As including the section 4 defence will extend the length of the trial, I acknowledge that this could have an impact on the available trial window. However, I do not consider that what is no more than a possibility in that respect, outweighs the advantages of the section 4 defence being heard and determined at the same time . For the avoidance of doubt, potential delay was the only objection raised by Mr Millar and Ms Gumbel to the inclusion of the public interest defence in the joint trial.

I have already explained why it is clear to me that the complex special damages aspect of the Libel Claim should be determined at a later stage, if it arises, rather than being included within the joint trial. I have also explained why I consider that causation and general damages should be addressed as part of the joint trial.