Jump Trading International Limited v Damien Couture & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1305 (KB)
Wladimir Patricot v Adrian Lee & Partners
5 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2493 (Ch)
High Court
Someone sued their old boss to get out of a contract that stopped them working for competitors. They wanted a super-fast trial, but the judge said no because they waited too long to ask, they already have a job, and there's no guarantee of a new job even if they win. The judge also worried a fast trial would make things difficult for everyone else.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Patricot) seeks expedited trial (by end of October 2023) against former employer (Adrian Lee & Partners) regarding enforceability of a non-compete clause (Clause 6).
- •Clause 6 prevents Claimant from working in specific businesses in Ireland, UK, and USA for 12 months post-employment.
- •Claimant now works in Switzerland but wants to return to the UK. Clause 6 expires February 2024.
- •Claimant's previous job offer from TRP was withdrawn due to the Defendant's threat of litigation.
- •Application for expedited trial was made five months after the Claim Form was issued.
Legal Principles
Court may expedite trial in cases of sufficient urgency and importance.
Chancery Guide 2022 (June 2023 revision), 3.19-3.20
Granting expedition is a matter of judicial discretion, requiring good reason and considering the overriding objective.
Wembley National Stadium Limited v Wembley (London) Limited [2000] 11 WLUK 1006; Petter v EMC Europe Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 480
Four factors to consider for expedition: good reason, interference with justice, prejudice to other party, and special factors (including applicant's conduct).
WL Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA Civ 622
Overriding factor for expedition is 'real, objectively viewed, urgency'.
Petter v EMC Europe Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 480
Delay in applying for expedition is a special factor, but not determinative. The reason for the delay is crucial.
Gore at [37]; Daltel Europe Ltd v Makki [2004] EWHC 1631
Restraint of trade litigation often involves real urgency due to the time-limited nature of restrictive covenants.
Verition Advisors (UK Partners) LLP v Jump Trading International Ltd [2023] IRLR 787
Outcomes
Application for expedited trial dismissed.
Claimant failed to demonstrate 'real, objectively viewed, urgency'. The delay in applying for expedition, the limited time remaining under the non-compete clause, the Claimant's current employment, and the lack of a firm job offer in the UK weighed heavily against expedition. The court also found that expedition would interfere with the administration of justice and prejudice the Defendant.
Similar Cases
Verition Advisors (UK Partners) LLP v Jump Trading International Limited
[2023] EWCA Civ 701
Texas Instruments Incorporated v Network System Technologies LLC
[2024] EWHC 1066 (Pat)
Aylo Premium Ltd & Anor v Aylo Premium Ltd & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1310 (Pat)
Masadur Rahman v Dewan Raisal Hassan & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3004 (Ch)