Jump Trading International Limited v Damien Couture & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1305 (KB)
Verition Advisors (UK Partners) LLP v Jump Trading International Limited
20 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 701
Court of Appeal
A company sued a former employee for breaking a non-compete agreement. A judge ordered a fast trial. The former employee's new company appealed, but a higher court said the judge was right because delaying would hurt the first company too much.
Key Facts
- •Jump Trading International Limited (Jump Trading) sought to enforce a non-compete covenant against its former employee, Damien Couture, now employed by Verition Advisors (UK Partners) LLP (Verition).
- •Couture's employment with Jump Trading ended on 31 March 2023 after a 12-month garden leave period.
- •The non-compete covenant allowed Jump Trading to elect a restraint period of 0-12 months after termination.
- •Jump Trading initiated proceedings on 14 April 2023 seeking injunctive relief to prevent Couture from working for Verition.
- •The High Court ordered a speedy trial, a decision Verition appealed.
Legal Principles
Expedition of a trial is only justified on the basis of real, objectively viewed, urgency.
Petter v EMC Europe Ltd & EMC Corporation [2015] EWCA Civ 480
Factors relevant to expediting a trial include good reason, interference with the administration of justice, prejudice to other parties, and any other special factors (including delay).
WL Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA Civ 622
The threshold for interfering with case-management decisions is high; the court will only interfere if the decision is 'plainly wrong'.
Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd (No 2) [2014] UKSC 64
In restraint of trade litigation, there is often real urgency due to the time-limited nature of restrictive covenants.
Lawrence David Ltd v Ashton [1989] ICR 123
Outcomes
Permission to appeal the speedy trial order was refused.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the High Court's discretionary decision. The judge correctly considered the urgency of the matter, the limited prejudice to Verition, and the potential for irreparable harm to Jump Trading if the non-compete covenant was not enforced promptly. The delay by Jump Trading was considered but did not outweigh the need for a speedy resolution.
The challenge to the judge's finding of a serious issue to be tried was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that this ground of appeal was improperly raised as it challenged reasoning used in refusing interim relief, not the speedy trial order itself. Further, the existence of a serious issue to be tried is not a prerequisite for a speedy trial. The court found the judge was entitled to conclude that there was a serious issue regarding the enforceability of the covenant.