Robin Crispin Odey v The Financial Conduct Authority

The Upper Tribunal may make reporting restrictions under Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 to protect the identities of alleged complainants and other individuals connected with allegations before it. The order may permit disclosure or publication where necessary for related court proceedings, and may preserve liberty to apply for affected third parties.

The Financial Conduct Authority applied orally for reporting restrictions in proceedings brought by Robin Crispin Odey. The application concerned the identities of alleged complainants and other individuals connected with three sets of allegations referred to in two Simmons & Simmons reports and an office-tour allegation.

The Tribunal considered the relationship between the proposed restrictions and related libel and personal-injury proceedings in which Mr Odey was also a party. Representatives of Law 360 and The Times were heard, and the Tribunal had previously given an ex tempore ruling on 26 March 2026.

1. Application granted. Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the Tribunal ordered that, without its permission, persons other than the parties and their advisers must not publish or disclose the name or initials of any alleged complainant, or any other individual connected with the alleged complaints, save for Mr Odey.
2. The restrictions apply to facts and matters concerning Mr Odey contained in the First Simmons & Simmons Report dated 19 January 2021, the Second Simmons & Simmons Report dated 30 November 2021, and the New Joiner Allegation concerning an office tour in March 2021.
3. The order expressly includes the individuals identified in the Confidential Schedule and operates subject to the stated exceptions.
4. The order does not prohibit disclosure or publication of documents or information in connection with the conduct of the related libel and personal-injury proceedings.
5. Liberty to apply was granted to any member of the media or other third party affected by the order. Breach may be treated as contempt of court and may result in a fine, imprisonment or seizure of assets.

The judgment records an earlier ex tempore ruling by the Upper Tribunal delivered on 26 March 2026. No appellate history is stated.