[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

It is common ground that there is an overlap between the libel claim and the PI claims. This is because firstly, all five of the claimants in the PI claims are witnesses for The FT in relation to its defence of truth in the libel claim. The pleaded PI claims are based on the same facts as the allegations relied upon in The FT's Defence of the libel claim. The accounts of the PI claimants are pleaded in The FT's Defence as follows: at paragraphs 24 to 27 in relation to JAS (who is referred to by the pseudonym "Charlotte" in the Defence of The FT); at paragraphs 28 to 30, MAM (there referred to as "Dawn"); paragraphs 34 to 37, Ms Maher; paragraphs 50 to 63, MJJ (referred to there as "Ivy"); and paragraphs 81 to 86 regarding the account of JFM (there referred to as "Nicole"). In both his Defence to the PI claim and in his Reply to the libel claim, Mr Odey says that these accounts contain false allegations.

Secondly, there is also the possibility that, if their evidence is admissible (which is not something which has yet been applied for or determined) some or all of the additional ten women who are witnesses for The FT in the libel claim may also be witnesses for the claimants in the PI claims.

Accordingly, as matters stand, it is likely that at least the five PI claimants will give evidence which is relevant to both sets of proceedings about the same events, as will Mr Odey, and this may also be the case in relation to some of the other witnesses relied upon by The FT.