Crispin Odey drops £79m libel claim against the Financial Times over sexual misconduct reporting, with Matrix Chambers and Reynolds Porter named as counsel
Crispin Odey, the hedge fund founder and former head of Odey Asset Management, has discontinued his £79 million ($106 million) libel claim against the Financial Times over a series of articles reporting allegations of sexual misconduct against him. The case was pending before the UK High Court and had been accompanied by parallel regulatory proceedings — Odey Asset Management faced scrutiny from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and Odey himself was subsequently subject to UK Upper Tribunal proceedings. Law firms named in the matter include Matrix Chambers and Reynolds Porter Chamberlain. The decision to drop the claim ends what would have been a high-profile defamation trial pitting one of the City's most prominent fund managers against one of the world's most influential financial newspapers. A libel claim of this size — nearly £80 million — is exceptional; English defamation law under the Defamation Act 2013 requires claimants to show serious harm to reputation, and the quantum of damages claimed would have required substantial evidential foundation. The discontinuance means there will be no ruling on the merits, but the FCA and Upper Tribunal proceedings relating to Odey's conduct and Fort Point Capital — a vehicle connected to the Odey group — remain live matters.
Why this matters
High-value libel claims brought by financial sector figures against major media organisations sit at the intersection of defamation law, financial regulation, and reputational risk management — generating work across litigation, regulatory defence, and employment practices simultaneously. The discontinuance is commercially significant because it avoids a public trial that would have aired detailed evidence about both the underlying misconduct allegations and Odey's financial position, which would have been relevant to the quantum of claimed damages. The 'why now' driver is likely the pressure of parallel FCA and Upper Tribunal proceedings: continuing expensive High Court litigation while regulatory proceedings are live creates strategic and financial exposure. For City firms, this illustrates the importance of coordinating defamation strategy with regulatory defence — advice in one proceeding can have implications for the other.
On the Ground
A trainee assisting on a matter like this would be involved in disclosure review and categorisation — reviewing documents to identify which are relevant and privileged — and in preparing court filing and service documentation when procedural steps are taken. They might also assist with chronology preparation, mapping the timeline of articles, complaints, and regulatory steps to support the legal team's strategic advice.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Dropping a £79m libel claim mid-proceedings signals that parallel regulatory exposure makes trial more dangerous than discontinuance.
Question you might get
“How does the Defamation Act 2013's 'serious harm' threshold affect the prospects of a high-value libel claim brought by a financial services professional against a major newspaper?”
Full answer
Crispin Odey has discontinued his £79 million libel action against the Financial Times over sexual misconduct reporting, ending proceedings before a High Court trial. The commercial reality is that continuing expensive defamation litigation while FCA and Upper Tribunal proceedings are active creates a compounding risk — evidence adduced in one forum can be used in another. Under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant of Odey's public profile faces a high serious harm threshold, and the quantum claimed would have required detailed evidence of financial and reputational loss. The discontinuance removes a major source of legal costs pressure on the FT, which had been defending a claim that would have been one of the largest defamation actions in English legal history. This illustrates a growing pattern of financial sector figures using defamation claims as a reputational management tool — and then withdrawing when the strategic calculus shifts.
Sources
My notes
saved