The Financial Times (FT) is “unconvinced” that a libel claim against it by hedge fund manager Crispin Odey is “serious”, the High Court has heard.
Mr Odey is suing the publication for at least £79 million in damages over four articles published in 2023 containing allegations he had sexually assaulted multiple women, which he denies.
The FT is defending the libel claim, claiming its reporting is accurate.
Mr Odey is also defending a separate legal action brought against him by five women over alleged misconduct between 1995 and 2023, including one who has accused him of rape.
At a preliminary hearing for both cases on Friday, Gavin Millar KC, representing the FT in the libel claim, said: “We remain unconvinced that Mr Odey’s libel claim is a serious one.”
The four articles at the centre of the libel action were published between June and July 2023.
The FT claimed, in June that year, that it had spoken to “13 women who said they had been abused by Odey” and, in July, said a further six had made allegations that he “sexually assaulted or harassed them”.
Mr Odey, who previously told the FT the allegations were “rubbish”, left his position at Odey Asset Management (OAM), the hedge fund he founded, days after they were published.
OAM, which was founded in 1991, was then wound down after several banks cut ties following the accusations first coming to light, although it remained a registered company.
Records from Companies House, the UK’s official register, showed that Mr Odey was reappointed a director of the firm in late September last year.
Mr Odey was first sued by some of the women in 2023, and launched the libel claim in May 2024.
In documents related to the libel case filed at the High Court, seen by the PA news agency, Mr Odey’s lawyers claimed he had suffered a “very significant financial loss” as a result of the articles, but that he “will limit his claim to the sum of £79 million”.
Adam Speker KC, representing Mr Odey in the libel claim, said the allegations were of a “gravely defamatory nature” which had caused “very serious harm to his reputation” and “serious distress and embarrassment”.
The hearing on Friday is dealing with which of the two claims should go to trial first, but Mrs Justice Heather Williams suggested that one trial should be held dealing with both claims.
She said that having two trials could see Mr Odey’s alleged victims having to give evidence twice, which would be “highly undesirable”.
She said: “We are in a position where on the face of it … one is looking at the court having two lengthy trials covering exactly the same factual allegations.”
She continued: “That is a very unsatisfactory situation from the court’s point of view.”
The hearing is due to conclude later on Friday, with a judgment expected at a later date.
