[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

I agree that limitation should be included in the joint trial, essentially for the reasons identified by Mr Kent and Mr Speker. There is a potential overlap with the determination of whether the sexual assault allegations are established, as I have outlined. As I have also indicated, Ms Gumbel did not oppose limitation being dealt with by the court at that stage. If that were not the case, her clients could end up having to give evidence on matters relating to their allegations at a second hearing as well. I also consider that addressing these matters at the same time as the liability allegations is likely to lead to a greater saving of costs and court time overall.

I have found it more difficult to determine whether damages and causation should also be included in the joint trial in respect of the PI claims. Doing so is unlikely to occasion delay, given that I have been told the expert evidence is not far away from being ready to exchange. However, I am conscious of not adding to the complexity of this trial, where that can sensibly and fairly be avoided, given the multiple issues that are already to be determined on that occasion. On the other hand, there may be force in Mr Kent and Mr Speker's points about the potential overlap between the psychiatric evidence, credibility and limitation questions. It would certainly be undesirable for the same experts to have to give evidence on more than one occasion.

Whilst I was not addressed on this point, a further factor to consider may be that some of the PI claims include a claim for the tortious intentional infliction of injury, in addition to the claim for assault. Unless such matters are capable of agreement, if the relevant sexual assault/s are proved, it may be necessary to include evidence relating to the injuries that are relied on for these purposes.

In all the circumstances, this seems to me to be the one area where it would be very useful for the court to have the exchanged witness statements and expert evidence in the PI Claims before making a decision on whether these aspects should be included in the joint trial. At this stage, for example, the degree of dispute between the experts and whether the experts are likely to be required to give oral evidence is simply unknown. Deferring the resolution of this question to a later stage is unlikely to impact substantially on the overall length of the trial - as I have already mentioned, Ms Gumbel estimated this aspect would require two to three days. Accordingly, taking this course would not prevent the listing of the trial in the interim.

Furthermore, deferral of this question will not impact on trial preparation steps. It is plain that matters must now proceed towards the already overdue exchange of witness statements and expert reports in any event.

It may be that aspects of the special damages claims in the PI claims, such as treatment costs and/or loss of earnings are capable of agreement, but that is not clear to me at this juncture.