[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

Upon considering the documentation and Skeleton Arguments, I noted that Mr Odey indicated he did not agree to be bound by findings made in the Libel Claim if that was heard first. Furthermore, The FT had indicated that it did not agree to be bound by findings made in the PI Claim if that went first. Accordingly, it appeared to me that whether I granted or refused the applications in the terms in which they were made, there was a real likelihood of the King's Bench Division hearing two lengthy trials, raising the same disputed factual matters. On the face of it, this struck me as highly undesirable, for reasons I will come on to.

With this in mind, I raised with counsel at the start of the hearing, the prospect of my directing that there be one trial at least on the liability issues, or certain liability issues. I will refer to this as “the Joint Trial Proposal”. I raised this at the outset, so that counsel would have an opportunity to consider this and address me on it. After raising it, I gave counsel some time to consider it, before I heard their oral submissions. I did emphasise that if any of the parties were opposed to a joint trial, it was incumbent upon them, consistent with their duty to assist the court and further the overriding objective, to come up with alternative proposals which would avoid the undesirable scenario of there being two lengthy trials concerning the same factual allegations.

I also clarified with Mr Odey's representatives, that he was not seeking a stay of the Libel Claim, pending resolution of the PI claims. This had been raised at one stage in the party and party correspondence, but no formal application had been made to this effect, and his representatives confirmed that he did not seek that outcome. Mr Millar KC confirmed that The FT sought a split trial, whether or not I granted the stay application.