Trump ‘wants to give evidence’ at High Court over ‘wholly untrue’ allegations

The former US president, 77, is bringing a data protection claim against Orbis Business Intelligence.

Donald Trump wants to give evidence at the High Court over “wholly untrue” allegations he took part in “perverted” sex acts and gave bribes to Russian officials, the London court has heard.

The former US president is bringing a data protection claim against Orbis Business Intelligence – a consultancy founded by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele – and is seeking compensation for distress.

Mr Steele, who previously ran the Secret Intelligence Service’s Russia desk, was the author of the so-called Steele dossier which included allegations Mr Trump had been “compromised” by the Russian security service, the FSB.

On Monday the High Court was told Mr Trump is bringing his case over two memos in the dossier which claimed the former president had taken part in “sex parties” while in St Petersburg and engaged in “golden showers” with prostitutes in Moscow.

In a witness statement for the preliminary hearing, Mr Trump, 77, described the allegations as “wholly untrue”.

“None of these things ever happened. All these false claims are made in the two memoranda which are the subject of this claim,” he continued.

Mr Trump later claimed the dossier had been found to have “a number of inaccurate and unproven allegations” and that Orbis has a “moral responsibility for its content”.

His barrister, Hugh Tomlinson KC, said Mr Trump knows he has the legal responsibility to prove the allegations are false in this case, and that he “intends to discharge his burden by giving evidence in this court”.

Donald Trump Court case
Former US president Donald Trump playing golf at Turnberry golf course during a visit to the UK (Jane Barlow/PA)

In written submissions, Mr Tomlinson said Orbis is accused of unlawfully processing Mr Trump’s personal data, causing him “serious distress and reputational damage”.

The court heard Mr Trump accepts Orbis is not responsible for the publication of the dossier – as it was leaked to and published by BuzzFeed – but claims his data was processed by the consultancy.

Mr Tomlinson later described Mr Trump as a “controversial figure”, adding: “He often expresses himself in very strong language … his interactions with the US legal system have been many and varied.

“None of this is relevant to the question of whether the personal data in question is accurate.”

But lawyers for Orbis asked for Mr Trump’s claim to be thrown out, telling the court it was “brought for the purpose of harassing Orbis and Mr Steele and pursuing longstanding grievances”.

Antony White KC, for the consultancy, said in written submissions the case “has no realistic prospect of success” and has been brought too late.

He said: “The claim for compensation is principally based on reputational damage allegedly suffered by the claimant.

“This claim is bound to fail on limitation grounds and because any reputational damage, and any resulting distress, allegedly suffered will have been caused by the BuzzFeed publication, for which the claimant accepts Orbis is not liable.”

Mr White said the dossier was never intended to be made public and all copies of the memos held by Orbis were destroyed in 2017.

The barrister later said Mr Trump’s case had been brought to pursue a “vendetta” against Orbis and Mr Steele.

He continued: “The claimant has a deep and intense animus against Mr Steele and Orbis, which is reflected in numerous vituperative public statements which he has made since the dossier was made public by BuzzFeed in 2017.”

Mr White said Mr Trump “has a long history of repeatedly bringing frivolous, meritless and vexatious claims for the purpose of vexing and harassing perceived enemies and others against whom he bears a grudge”.

However, in his witness statement, the former president said that while he feels “aggrieved” by Mr Steele, he was “pursuing a claim against the defendant in relation to the processing of inaccurate personal data, not Mr Steele in a personal capacity”.

The hearing before Mrs Justice Steyn is set to conclude on Tuesday, with a decision expected at a later date.

More from Perspective

Get a free copy of our print edition


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.
You need to agree with the terms to proceed

Your email address will not be published. The views expressed in the comments below are not those of Perspective. We encourage healthy debate, but racist, misogynistic, homophobic and other types of hateful comments will not be published.