Alexander Aslani v Paulina Sobierajska
[2024] EWHC 1045 (KB)
Titan Wealth Holdings Limited & Ors v Marian Atinuke Okunola (Fullalove 4 and Special Measures)
10 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2586 (KB)
High Court
A former employee sued her old company. The court let the company submit late evidence and allowed two of its employees to give evidence from behind a screen to protect them from the former employee's harassment.
Key Facts
- •Titan Wealth Holdings Limited and related claimants sued Marian Okunola, a former employee, for breach of confidence, breach of contract, and harassment.
- •The case involved two preliminary applications: (1) admitting a late witness statement and (2) granting special measures (restricting cross-examination and allowing witnesses to testify from behind a screen).
- •The late witness statement (Fullalove 4) addressed the issue of the claimants' solicitors' authority to act, prompted by the defendant's challenge based on Companies House records.
- •The special measures application concerned the cross-examination of the Group Human Resources Director and Group Compliance Director, who were allegedly harassed by the defendant.
- •The defendant challenged the claimants' solicitors' authority, the late witness statement, and the need for special measures.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9.
Denton v White [2014] 1 WLR 3926
Court's power to limit cross-examination under CPR 32.1(3).
CPR 32.1(3)
Determining relevance of evidence in harassment claims.
Law Society v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 QB at [133], Pattinson v Winsor [2024] EWHC 230 KB at [24]
Special measures directions under CPR PD1A to ensure full participation of vulnerable parties/witnesses.
CPR PD1A, paragraph 3 and 4
Outcomes
Granted relief from sanctions, allowing the late witness statement.
The need for the statement arose late; the claimants acted promptly; the defendant suffered no prejudice; admitting the statement would improve efficiency.
Granted special measures: restricted cross-examination and allowed witnesses to testify from behind a screen.
The truth of the defendant's assertions in the harassing correspondence was irrelevant; cross-examination risked further harassment; the witnesses were vulnerable due to the correspondence and their relationship with the defendant; past positive experiences with screens supported the order.