A notable civil case accusing Andrew Tate of subjecting four women to sexual violence and coercive control marks a legal precedent, as pointed out by a judge overseeing the case.
Tate, an influential figure, faces a lawsuit from two women who were employees of his webcam business in Luton, Bedfordshire, in 2015, and from two former girlfriends from 2013 and 2014.
Among the allegations, one woman claims Tate, now 38, assaulted her by raping, strangling, and hitting her with a belt in 2015, even pointing a gun and threatening her with harm.
Anne Studd QC, representing the women, informed the judge, Richard Armstrong, that this may be the first time coercive control has been presented before the high court in a civil context.
The case also stands out as it may be the first to consider coercive control as intentional infliction of harm in a civil setting, as outlined in written submissions by the barrister.
The matter, addressed at the high court in London, covered preliminary points such as information disclosure and legal expenses, with the judge noting that the claimants seek damages in the range of hundreds of thousands and scheduling a three-week trial for early 2027.
Tate denies the accusations, asserting that his relationships with the women were consensual. His defense dismisses the claims as “a pack of lies” and “nonsense,” arguing that personal injury allegations are outdated as they exceed a three-year statute of limitations.
The case involves an extensive review of evidence, including thousands of pages of public material and law enforcement data, as well as video footage.
Tate is known for his online presence, where he frequently discusses themes of violence against women and displays misogynistic views, adding context to his seemingly endorsing such behavior.
The judge allowed reliance on expert testimony regarding victims’ hesitation to report sexual violence promptly but disallowed expert opinion on coercive control.
studd argued for the necessity of the second expert to provide a comprehensive picture of coercive control, likened to a form of grooming that significantly impairs the victim’s ability to seek help or leave abusive situations.
However, Marshall KC, representing Tate, deemed the additional expert evidence unnecessary.
Judge Armstrong refused to grant Tate’s request for travel expenses to Romania for giving statements, commenting that Tate’s recent travel to the US and Dubai indicated he is capable of traveling to the UK.
Though three women previously reported Tate to Hertfordshire police in 2019, no criminal charges were brought. Tate and his brother Tristan have ongoing criminal investigations in Romania for human trafficking and money laundering, with Bedfordshire police also seeking their arrest in relation to rape and trafficking allegations dating back to 2012-2015.
