![[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
Generally, what is perceived to offer the best course to ensure that the whole matter is adjudicated as fairly, quickly and effectively as possible
Generally, what is perceived to offer the best course to ensure that the whole matter is adjudicated as fairly, quickly and effectively as possible
I accept Mr Millar's submission that a key consideration in this case is that the liability issue should be tried as soon as is reasonably possible. For somewhat different reasons related to the age of the allegations, those acting for Mr Odey are also keen for this to happen.
The time when a joint trial can take place is likely to be significantly delayed by the inclusion of the special damages claim amongst the issues to be resolved, given its complexity and the necessary preparatory and evidential steps I have referred to.
From the submissions made to me, I do not consider that general damages or causation are likely to have the same impact on delaying the hearing of the joint trial. I have already explained why evidence in respect of those matters is likely to be of limited compass.
Accordingly, I will grant the split trial application as far as the special damages claim is concerned. However, I consider that as matters stand, issues of causation and general damages are better addressed in the joint trial, and that a clear benefit for delaying the hearing of those issues has not been shown.
- 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