Key Facts
- •Claim for breach of confidence, breach of contract, and harassment against a former employee.
- •Defendant applied to strike out the claim or for summary judgment.
- •Defendant's skeleton argument contained merits submissions.
- •Judge considered the defendant's application to be highly fact-sensitive.
- •Overlapping arguments between strike-out/summary judgment application and trial.
- •Practical issues with page references in the defendant's skeleton argument.
- •Preliminary pre-trial issues needed resolution before trial evidence could commence.
- •Three-day trial listing was at risk.
Legal Principles
Overriding objective in civil proceedings.
Implied in the judgment's consideration of efficiency and avoiding duplicated effort.
Harassment: Standard for harassment and statutory defences.
Defendant's arguments regarding the definition and defence of harassment.
Breach of Confidence: Existence and scope of duty.
Defendant's arguments about confidentiality and to whom the duty is owed.
Outcomes
The judge refused to hear the strike-out/summary judgment application before the trial.
The application was highly fact-sensitive, arguments overlapped with the trial, practical problems with the skeleton argument existed, and preliminary pre-trial issues needed addressing. Hearing the application before the trial would be inefficient and risk delaying the trial.
The strike-out/summary judgment application and the trial will be heard concurrently.
This approach allows for efficient use of time and resources, and allows for a comprehensive consideration of all the evidence and arguments.