Latest news with #libel
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Financial Times ‘unconvinced' Odey libel claim is ‘serious', High Court told
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.
The Independent
5 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Financial Times ‘unconvinced' Odey libel claim is ‘serious', High Court told
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.
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Mum loses final appeal for defaming ‘Datuk' sons in FB video
The Court of Appeal ruled that the appellant's defence of justification and fair comment was not applicable. PUTRAJAYA : A mother who defamed her two businessmen sons, both of whom have 'Datuk' titles, has lost in her final appeal to set aside the finding of liability and payment of RM200,000 in damages. A three-member Court of Appeal bench chaired by Justice Azimah Omar said the High Court did not err in upholding a sessions court ruling that VT Menaka had lowered the reputation of her sons, M Natarajen and M Satishkumar, through a video posted on Facebook. 'There is no appealable error that warrants appellate intervention. Unfortunately, the sons had to take their mother to court,' she said, adding that the plaintiffs had proved all the elements of libel. Azimah said the 30-minute video in Tamil with a derogatory caption had tarnished the reputation of Menaka's sons. 'The appellant's defence of justification and fair comment is also not applicable,' said the judge, who heard the appeal with Justices Wong Kian Kheong and Ismail Brahim. The bench also ordered Menaka, 67, to pay RM20,000 in costs to her sons. However, lawyer M Manoharan, representing Natarajen,42, and Satishkumar, 41 said Menaka was classified as bankrupt after she had failed to pay the judgment sum and costs of RM10,750 as ordered by the Seremban sessions court in 2023. The mother was ordered to pay RM100,000 in damages each to the sons. 'She filed this appeal after obtaining consent from the insolvency department,' he said. In the posting made on Sept 19, 2020, Menaka claimed that her sons were 'big time' criminals, had forged her signature to remove her as a director of their family company, Linsun Group of Companies Malaysia, and wanted to kill her with a pistol. Lawyer Asmawi Ismail appeared for Menaka.
The Sun
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Sun
Joey Barton ordered to pay eye-watering sum towards Jeremy Vine's legal costs after their libel battle
FORMER footballer Joey Barton has been ordered to pay more than £200,000 of broadcaster Jeremy Vine's legal costs after their libel battle. The BBC Radio 2 presenter, 60, had sued for libel and harassment over posts on X falsely calling him a 'big bike nonce ' and a 'paedo defender'. 2 2 The pair settled last year as Barton, 42, posted two apologies on X and paid £110,000 in damages. A court hearing in London yesterday heard Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine's costs. But Vine wanted a further £60,000 for costs over negotiating that sum. Suzanner Holmes, for Barton, said that the request was 'excessive'. She said it should be reduced. But Vine's representative Kevin Latham said Barton had 'repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation'. The court ruled Barton should pay £43,172.20 to add to the £160,000. Neither Barton nor Vine attended the hearing in London. Shamed Joey Barton GUILTY of kicking wife in head as their kids slept upstairs
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
Joey Barton to pay more than £200k of Jeremy Vine's legal fees in libel case after calling BBC and Channel 5 star a 'big bike nonce' and a 'pedo defender'
Former footballer Joey Barton will pay more than £200,000 of Jeremy Vine 's legal costs for a High Court libel battle after the pundit labelled the cyclist a 'big bike nonce' and a 'pedo defender', a court has heard. Vine sued Barton for libel and harassment over several online posts, including one in which he falsely called the BBC Radio 2 presenter a 'pedo [sic] defender' on X, formerly Twitter. The pair settled the civil claim last year after Barton posted two apologies on the same social media platform and agreed to pay a total of £110,000 in damages to Vine, as well as his legal costs. In an agreed statement read out at the High Court in October last year, barrister Gervase de Wilde, for Vine, said that the broadcaster 'was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset' by Barton's actions, which included a 'persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information'. On Tuesday, a specialist costs court heard that Barton - who was once capped by England, playing just 17 minutes - had agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine's costs from the main legal action. Costs Judge Colum Leonard also ordered Barton to pay a further £43,172.30 arising from the negotiation of the £160,000 figure, meaning he will pay a total of £203,172.30 of Vine's costs following the legal action. Lawyers for Vine told the High Court in May last year that Barton's posts amounted to a 'calculated and sustained attack'. Barton - who played for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United, Rangers, and French side Marseille during his career - also began using '#bikenonce' on X, which led to it trending on the platform. Barton, 42, has apologised for his comments on social media, releasing a post on X After Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that some of the posts could defame Vine, Barton apologised to the journalist in June last year, stating that the allegations he made were 'untrue'. Among the posts shared included Barton publishing Vine's home address and a video of him in heels, with the caption: 'Nothing to see here'. He said that he would pay Vine £75,000 in damages, but solicitors for Vine later said Barton would pay a further £35,000 as part of a 'separate settlement' for claims published after legal action began. Mr De Wilde told the October hearing that Barton made four undertakings as part of the settlement, including not to harass Vine or encourage others to do so. Vine said following that hearing that Barton 'needs to find himself a different hobby'. The hearing on Tuesday was told that Barton agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine's legal costs earlier this month, and that Vine was claiming around £60,000 in costs for negotiating that figure. Suzanne Holmes, for Barton, said this was 'excessive' and 'disproportionate', and should be reduced. Kevin Latham, representing Vine, said Barton had 'repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation' throughout proceedings and 'has to bear the consequences of that approach'.
