Wladimir Patricot v Adrian Lee & Partners

Expedition of a trial requires real, objectively viewed urgency. The court must assess that overriding question against good reason for expedition, interference with the administration of justice, prejudice to the other party, and other special factors, including delay and conduct. Delay is relevant but not automatically decisive. A short remaining lifespan of a restrictive covenant does not, by itself, justify expedition where the applicant is employed, any loss is compensable, the timetable is impractical, or judgment would have little practical utility.

The claimant sought an expedited trial of his claim for a declaration that a 12-month non-compete clause in his former employment contract was unenforceable. The clause was due to expire on 2 February 2024. The claim was issued in April 2023, but the application for expedition was not made until September 2023. The claimant was employed in Switzerland and wished to return to work in the United Kingdom. The issue was whether the circumstances justified a trial by the end of October 2023.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant had not established the overriding requirement of real, objectively viewed urgency.
2. The court applied the framework in WL Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox SpA: whether there was good reason for expedition, whether expedition would interfere with the good administration of justice, whether it would prejudice the defendant, and whether other special factors, including the applicant’s conduct, weighed for or against expedition. Those factors had to be considered in the light of the overriding urgency requirement.
3. The short period remaining before expiry of the covenant did not establish urgency. The claimant was employed, was not facing unquantifiable or uncompensatable damage, had no firm United Kingdom job offer, and could give notice in his existing employment so that a favourable judgment would have limited practical value. His five-month delay was particularly significant because the asserted reasons for urgency existed when the claim was issued.
4. Verition Advisors (UK Partners) LLP v Jump Trading International Ltd did not assist the claimant. That case concerned an employer seeking to enforce a covenant, with substantial time remaining and potential irreparable damage. Its reasoning could not be transferred to the materially different circumstances here.
5. The proposed timetable would not provide a sensible preparation period. Disclosure, bundles and witness statements could not realistically be completed within the suggested period. The issues might require consideration of the defendant’s business, the claimant’s role and whether the proposed employer was a competitor. The defendant would therefore suffer prejudice, and expedition would risk interfering with the administration of justice.
6. The court would have refused the application on each of the grounds considered separately. The application was dismissed.