[2025] EWHC 2621 (KB)

Mr Odey has not asserted any specific prejudice in relation to the hiving off of his special damages claim. Indeed, Mr Speker indicated that he did not object to this, albeit he considered the decision would be better addressed at a later stage. As I have already explained, Mr Odey's primary position in the hearing before me is that the PI claim should go first, so this is not an instance where the claimant is suggesting that they would be prejudiced by a delay in their entitlement to damages being assessed.

I accept that Mr Odey could be disadvantaged to a degree if general damages were not assessed at the joint trial. Whilst I envisage that every reasonable effort would be made to have the same judge in the main trial and the subsequent trial of the special damages claim, this could not be guaranteed. In such a scenario, I accept that the judge at the joint trial would be better placed to assess general damages. Although the judge at the second trial would have the benefit of the earlier judgment, and potentially transcripts from the first trial, the latter would not necessarily convey, for example, the tone in which Mr Odey was questioned which, in turn, might be relevant to arguments about aggravation of damages. Furthermore, to return briefly to the question of costs, it would be more cost effective for the judge hearing the joint trial to determine general damages at that time, rather than have a second judge reading through transcripts of multiple days of evidence at a later stage, in order to get a feel for what went on at the main trial.

The only point of prejudice that was raised by The FT related to the impact of delay, which I will come on to address when I turn to the eighth factor.