Andrew Tate tried to bully women accusing him of sexual violence into dropping their High Court claim with a near-£1million costs bill, their lawyer has claimed.
The controversial online influencer is accused by four women of rape, sexual assault, coercive control, and threats of violence, with a civil trial now set for early 2027.
Speaking outside court, the women’s lawyer Matt Jury said they believe Tate will try to “victim-shame” in his defence to the claim, and accused him of trying to forced his accusers to drop out of the legal proceedings with his costs estimate.
A judge on Tuesday ordered that Tate’s costs should be limited to 60 percent of the bill he originally submitted.
“I think it was an attempt to intimidate the victims to consider withdrawing their claims”, said Mr Jury, speaking to reporters outside the Royal Court of Justice.
“We are grateful that the court has acknowledged that the defendant has sought to penalise the claimants for bringing this claim with an extraordinary claim for costs of nearly a million pounds.”
He said Tate “is going to be seeking to victim-shame, minimize the allegations and delegitimize any of the evidence and expert evidence that going to be brought in the proceedings.”
The civil trial has been set for 15 days between January and March 2027, and Mr Jury used his words outside court to make fresh calls for Tate and his brother Tristan to be extradited to the UK to face criminal charges.
“Right now, these are the only live proceedings in which Andrew Tate will be facing justice”, he said.
“The Romanian prosecution appears to have fallen apart. The UK government is doing nothing to seek his extradition from overseas.
“I think Andrew Tate should be extradited along with his brother Tristan Tate. There is already an extradition request to Romania that was approved, but I think the UK authorities should be taking steps to extend that request to anywhere else where they decide to travel.”
The court heard on Tuesday that Tate’s case is set to be a landmark trial on “coercive control” and whether it can contribute to a civil damages claim.
Tate is accused holding a gun to one of the women’s face before saying “you’re going to do as I say or there’ll be hell to pay”.
Another accuser says Tate told her he was “just debating whether to rape you or not” before going on to have sex with her without consent.
Tate denies the accusations from four women, saying all sexual contact was consensual and insisting claims made against him are “false”.
Anne Studd KC, representing the women, asked a High Court judge on Tuesday for permission to call two extra experts - Jane Monkton Smith, a Professor of Public Protection at the University of Gloucestershire, and Professor Timothy Dalgleish, a clinical psychologist at the University of Cambridge - during the trial.
This is a landmark case, she said, as it is “the first claim where allegations of coercive control have been considered in a civil context of whether that behaviour can amount to intentional infliction of harm”.
Ms Studd said Professor Dalgleish - an expert in the impact of sexual trauma - will give evidence on “why victims of sexual violence do not always bring claims precipitously”.
Tate has opposed the women being able to call her extra experts as witnesses, saying there is already an expert on each side of the battle.
Ms Studd said coercive control is “a form of grooming and manipulation where the victim becomes less and less able to respond in what might be perceived as a normal way in particular, she may not leave even if the door is open”.
She said Professor Monkton Smith “can assist with explaining victim behaviour and help the court understand why a victim might stay in an abusive relationship, why they might seem to act in ways that seem illogical or contradictory, or why they might not have sought help sooner.
“She can help analyse the pattern of behaviour, highlighting the subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which the abuser exerted control over the victim and identify and explain specific tactics used by abusers, such as isolation, intimidation, financial control, and emotional manipulation.”
Master Armstrong rejected the application for Professor Monkton Smith to be allowed as an expert witness, ruling that an experienced High Court judge will oversee the case and be able to assess issues around coercion and control. However he said the women could renew the request, if there is a specific point of evidence that needs to be raised.
But he allowed Professor Dalgleigh to be called, to give evidence about the delay in the claims being brought before the court.
According to documents filed in the case, one of Tate’s accusers says he grabbed her by the throat on a number of occasions in 2015, had assaulted her with a belt and had pointed a gun at her face.
The woman claims Tate “would strangle her or grab her by her throat if she spoke back to him or said anything that he did not like… until she told him that she loved him or apologised for whatever he demanded at the time”.
She said he, and his brother Tristan Tate, “played good cop and bad cop to manipulate her”, and that Tate allegedly put her in a headlock or whipped her with a belt if she did not get out of bed and do work for his webcam business.
The documents also allege Tate, a former professional kickboxer, “had weapons, including firearms, which were often pointed at her” and that he had “indicated to her that he would like to kill someone if he could”.
Tate’s lawyers, in written submissions, say the woman’s account is a “fabrication” and a “pack of lies”.
A second woman alleges Tate strangled her during sex without her consent in 2015 and “made it very clear that she was ‘his’, and if anyone else spoke to her, he would kill them”.
The woman, who also said she worked for Tate’s webcam business, claims he “punched her on her arm” on one occasion.
She alleges he strangled her with his arm “so frequently it became normal” and it “often occurred if she had said something he did not like or if she answered him back”.
The woman said she was “forced to barricade herself inside the bathroom” after Tate “threatened to ‘beat the shit out of’ her.”
Tate says he “did not abuse” the woman during sex and “if he had done it beggars belief they had consensual sex on so many occasions”.
A third woman claims Tate told her “I’m just debating whether to rape you or not” before going on to have sex with her without her consent in 2013, while saying “who do you belong to?”.
She said Tate’s hand was “so tight” around her neck that “she could not speak” during the alleged incident and when she “tried to tell him that she did not want him to do what he was doing, he would strangle her more forcefully.”
The complainant claimed Tate was “intent on being as physically abusive as possible” on two further occasions they had had sex.
On one occasion, the woman said the influencer allegedly drove her to a field and dragged her into the back of his car before strangling her and “demanded that she list 10 things that ‘made him a man’.”
The woman also claimed Tate had described himself as the “mafia” and the “messiah” and convinced her “that he had killed people”.
Tate says he was “never violent towards her” and that all sex between the pair was consensual.
The fourth woman claims Tate told her “I own you” and “I’m going to kill you” and had strangled her during sex until she passed out in 2014.
The woman claims she saw “a gun on the sofa” after she spent the night with him but “did not know if it was real or a replica”.
She also claimed he had threatened to kill her if he had received a parking ticket.
Tate says the woman “did not lose consciousness” and that she had “participated fully in what was mutual, consensual sex”.
The civil lawsuit follows a 2019 Crown Prosecution Service decision not to prosecute Tate.
In a statement about the civil case, Tate said through his lawyers he “denies ever threatening anyone with a firearm, engaging in non-consensual acts or subjecting any individual to physical or psychological harm.
“These are civil claims, brought years after the alleged events and following a CPS decision not to pursue criminal charges. It is deeply troubling that such graphic and one-sided accounts are being publicised before any judicial assessment has taken place.”
Arguing her case to call the experts, Ms Studd told the court they would cost just under £10,000, while Tate’s single expert is said to cost £74,600 for their evidence.
In October last year, Tate’s lawyers set out: “We do not consider it necessary for the parties to appoint more than one expert each in this case.”
Vanessa Marshall KC, representing Tate, said they “accept in this day and age that coercive and controlling behaviour does exist”, and told the court: “We are not going to be saying for one moment women subjected to sexual abuse and assault can never suffer from being coerced and controlled”.
But she argued the case is about the women’s claims they were harm and left with depression, PTSD, pain, suffering, and shock, and coercive control is “really not the issue in this case”.
She also argued that Professor Monkton Smith is “tainted” because of social media comments she has made about Tate.
The judge set the full civil trial for 15 days between January and March 2027, and ordered that there is a pre-trial review in July next year.
In Romania, the Tate brothers are facing allegations of trafficking minors, sexual intercourse with a minor and money laundering.
A separate case against them, in which they are accused of human trafficking and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women, has been sent back to prosecutors.
The pair are due to be extradited to the UK following the conclusion of proceedings in Romania, after Bedfordshire Police secured a European arrest warrant for further separate allegations of rape and human trafficking involving different women.
Those allegations, which the brothers “unequivocally deny”, date back to 2012-2015.
