[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

In brief summary, the parties' respective position are as follows. The FT seeks a split trial of liability on the one hand and damages and other remedies on the other. It supports the PI claimants’ application for a stay of the PI claims until after the liability trial has taken place in the Libel Claim. It contends that this is the best way of avoiding duplication of proceedings and unnecessary costs. The FT provided a draft order, indicating the split that it sought was as follows.

“1.

There would be a first trial to determine the following issues:-

(i)

Whether the statements complained of or any of them are substantially true in the agreed meaning pursuant to section 2 of the Defamation Act, 2013.

(ii)

Whether the statements complained of or any of them were or formed part of a statement on a matter of public interest, which the defendant reasonably believed that it was in the public interest, pursuant to section 4(1) of the Defamation Act, 2013, to publish, and continue to publish.

2.

That there be a second trial, in the event that it was necessary of the following issues:

(i)

What award of general damages, if any, should be made to the claimant.

(ii)

What award of special damages, if any, should be awarded to the claimant.

(iii)

Any issues concerning interest on the above.

(iv)

What other remedies, if any, should be awarded to the claimant in terms of non-pecuniary relief.”

In the draft order, The FT set out a series of directions in respect of the first trial, including for disclosure to take place within 12 weeks, inspection a week after, and then exchange of witness statements 12 weeks after that. Paragraph 6 of the draft order envisages a trial window of 12 January to 1 April 2026 for the first trial, although this was modified in written and oral submissions, to suggest a trial window of 5 May to 31 July 2026.

The FT's position is that this is the swiftest means by which the disputed allegations can come to trial and the women give their accounts in evidence. The draft order envisages that if a second trial is necessary after the first trial, there will be a further CMC at that stage, to give directions for the second trial. Mr Millar indicated that whilst a preference was for the Libel Claim to be tried first on liability with the PI claim stayed, his client was "very interested" in the single trial proposal, and considered that this was workable.

In pre-hearing correspondence and in the Skeleton Argument of Ms Gumbel KC, the PI claimants supported The FT's split trial application, and sought an order that their cases be stayed, pending the outcome of the liability trial in the Libel Claim . The PI claimants agreed with The FT's reasoning, and also submitted it would be unfair and oppressive for their PI claims to be tried first. The PI claimants have indicated that if the liability trial in the Libel Claim is heard before the trial in the PI Claim, they agree to be bound by the findings made in those proceedings, in respect of the allegations they make regarding Mr Odey's conduct.

After hearing my proposal at the outset of the hearing, Ms Gumbel indicated that a single joint trial would be her client's preferred option, as it was now clear that Mr Odey would not agree to be bound by the findings of fact in the first libel trial, and that a joint trial was the only means by which the PI claimants could be confident that they would only have to give their evidence of the disputed events on one occasion.

Mr Odey opposes both applications. He disputes that a split trial is likely to enable the Libel Claim to proceed more quickly or to save costs. He says the PI Claims should be heard first, as they are procedurally more advanced, that the PI claimants would need to give evidence on a wider range of matters in those proceedings, and that there will be a greater opportunity there for Mr Odey to test their accounts, as fairness requires.

Whilst not their preferred options, for reasons they explained, neither Mr Kent KC nor Mr Speker KC suggested that a single joint trial would be impossible. As I will come onto when I refer to their submissions in more detail, they did not agree with the views expressed by The FT and the PI claimants as to the appropriate scope of the joint trial, if I were to direct one.