THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME
The following is before the court. Firstly, two statements made by Alex Wilson, partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, in support of The FT's position, "Wilson 2" dated 13 May 2025 and "Wilson 3" dated 20 June 2025. Secondly, two statements made by Jill Greenfield, partner at Fieldfisher, in support of the PI claimants' position, dated 14 May and 20 June 2025. Thirdly, one statement made by Harry Stewart Moore, partner at Gardner Leader LLP, in support of Mr Odey's position, dated 13 June 2025.
There is also a statement made by Mr Odey himself dated 8 July 2025. Although this was filed and served after the deadline imposed in Steyn J's directions, I give permission for it to be admitted. It is relied upon primarily to respond to matters raised in Wilson 3, rather than to adduce evidence which should have been anticipated at an earlier stage. The FT did not object to this course, and I do not consider that any prejudice is occasioned by the admission of this evidence.
It is unnecessary for me to attempt to summarise the contents of each of the witness statements, or the extensive party and party correspondence, much of which is, in turn, summarised in those statements. I have read all of the statements, and I have taken their contents into account.
- 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
![[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png)