THE PI CLAIMS
THE PI CLAIMS
The PI claims are brought by five women who allege that Mr Odey sexually assaulted them. The claims relate to alleged sexual assaults as follows. In the period 1995 to 1996, JAS; in the year 1998, MAM; in 2004 Ms Maher; in 2013, MJJ; and in 2021 JFM. Anonymity orders and associated reporting restrictions have been imposed in relation to the identities of four of the five claimants. In the case of Ms Maher, the equivalent restrictions have only been imposed in respect of her address.
Letters of claim were sent on behalf of the various claimants during the period July 2023 to January 2024. Claims by JFM and MAM were issued on 18 August 2023. Ms Maher and MJJ applied to be added to the existing claim form in November 2023. By order of 25 April 2024, Master Sullivan directed each claim to be issued on a separate claim form and thereafter individual claim forms were duly issued. Damages are sought for psychiatric injuries, injury to feelings and special damages are claimed for financial losses, including loss of earnings and treatment costs.
Mr Odey and OAM advanced substantive Defences to the PI claims, and in four of the five cases, a limitation Defence. The five claims have been case managed together. Standard disclosure and inspection took place in February and March 2025, witness statements were due to be exchanged by 12 June 2025. However, the claimants have not been ready to exchange statements thus far. The defendant, Mr Odey, has filed his statements with the court on a confidential basis. The parties have permission to instruct psychiatrists, and the experts were due to exchange reports by 25 June 2025. The claimants have been examined by the relevant experts, but exchange of reports has not taken place thus far. The PI claims have not yet been listed for trial.
Pursuant to Master Sullivan's order of 27 November 2024, a CMC was due to be held at 10.30 am on 21 July 2025. However, in light of the inter-relationship with the two applications I was due to rule on, and without objection from the parties, I adjourned the CMC at the conclusion of the hearing before me last Friday.
- 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)