[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

The Libel Claim is brought in respect of four articles published by The FT in June and July 2023, comprised substantively of two articles which were each published in print and on line ("the Articles"). Between them, the Articles reported on the accounts of 19 women who alleged they were subject to sexual assault and/or harassment by Mr Odey in the period between 1985 and 2021. The natural and ordinary meaning of the words used has been agreed, as recorded in Collins Rice J's order of 6 December 2024. The agreed meaning of each of the articles is that:

Mr Odey seeks to recover general and special damages. The latter is limited by him to £79 million and is founded on the proposition that his removal from OAM and its subsequent collapse was as a result of the Articles. The special damages claim comprises loss of Mr Odey's direct and indirect interest in OAM, of an estimated aggregate value of £147 million; or, in the alternative, lost earnings until his intended retirement date, estimated at £144 million, together with the loss of the residual value of his interest in OAM; and, in any event, additional losses incurred on various investments, said to total £7.6 million. The details are set out at paragraphs 32 to 53 of the Amended Particulars of Claim (“APC”).

The libel claim was issued on 29 May 2024, and served on 18 September 2024. The FT served its defence on 14 February 2025. It defends the libel claim on the basis that the articles are substantially true in the agreed meaning, pursuant to section 2 of the Defamation Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act"). The Defence pleads allegations made by 15 of the women in support of this, as set out at paragraphs 11 to 86 of the Defence. The FT also defends the libel claim on the basis of publication in the public interest, pursuant to section 4 of the 2013 Act. The FT accepts that the articles meet the threshold of serious harm, for the purpose of section 1 of the 2013 Act, but denies Mr Odey's entitlement to general or special damages, or to any other relief, and puts him to proof on his damages claim.

Mr Odey served a Reply on 8 April 2025. His case on truth is that the pleaded allegations of the women are largely false, and where they are not false, they do not assist in proving the truth of the imputation, as set out at paragraphs 5 to 59 of his Reply. In this claim, directions questionnaires and draft directions have been filed, but no Case Management Conference (“CMC”) has yet been listed, or directions made to trial. No disclosure has been given or witness statements exchanged.