Illiquidx Limited v Altana Wealth Limited & Ors

Applications to strike out or obtain summary judgment are determined by the pleaded case and the evidence appropriate to the relevant test. Strike out requires a claim that is unwinnable or bound to fail. Summary judgment requires no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for trial.

Late amendments must have a real prospect of success, be coherent and properly particularised, and be supported by evidence. Claims for misuse of confidential information or trade secrets must identify the information and alleged misuse sufficiently clearly for the opposing party to understand the case.

The court may retain a borderline issue for trial where oral evidence and the totality of the evidence may affect the outcome. Trial witness statements must contain relevant evidence of personal knowledge, prepared in accordance with Practice Direction 57AC. Expert evidence should be admitted only where necessary, helpful, or reasonably required in the proceedings as a whole.

Illiquidx Limited brought claims concerning the alleged misuse of confidential information and trade secrets relating to the monetisation of distressed Venezuelan sovereign debt. The claims also alleged breach of contract, copyright infringement and related wrongdoing.

Before trial, the defendants sought strike out or summary judgment on the pleaded case concerning AV Securities and the claim for injunctive relief. Illiquidx sought permission to amend its pleadings, to rely on expert evidence, and to introduce further allegations. The defendants also challenged two trial witness statements under Practice Direction 57AC.

The court considered whether the pleaded claims and proposed amendments were sufficiently particularised and supported by evidence, whether disputed issues should proceed to trial, whether the witness statements complied with the Practice Direction, and whether expert evidence was reasonably required.

1. The defendants’ application concerning AV Securities was dismissed. The issue was closely integrated with the alleged package of confidential information and business opportunity. Although the evidence gave the defendants’ interpretation considerable force, the issue was more than arguable and involved factual matters better tested at trial. The late stage of the application and the compelling reason for a trial also engaged CPR r.24.2(b).

2. Permission was granted to amend the AV Securities case, subject to clarification of who introduced the defendants to AV Securities and clarification or deletion of the phrase “among other things”. The amendment materially changed the presentation of the case, but the pleadings needed to reflect the case now advanced.

3. Permission was refused for the proposed Service Provider A, Apex and PDVSA 2020 amendments. The Service Provider A allegation did not adequately plead the necessary quality of confidence, unauthorised use or the resulting relief. The Apex amendment was improper and irrelevant in its proposed form. The PDVSA 2020 amendment introduced “undervalued” without a pleaded or evidential basis supporting that characterisation.

4. The claim for injunctive relief based on misuse of confidential information and trade secrets was retained for trial. The expiry of the NDA did not necessarily exclude a co-existing equitable obligation of confidence. The issue was borderline, but the court was not satisfied that it met the strike-out or summary-judgment tests.

5. The claimant was ordered to rewrite Mr Amore’s and Ms Alabatchka’s trial witness statements so that they complied with Practice Direction 57AC. The statements appeared substantially document-led, included speculation about other parties’ states of mind, and were not sufficiently confined to relevant evidence of personal knowledge. No order was made requiring the solicitor who signed the certificates of compliance to provide a witness statement.

6. Permission to adduce expert evidence on the market for Latin American sovereign and corporate debt was refused. The proposed evidence was not necessary, could be provided by factual witnesses, and was not reasonably required. The application was also made very late, with a substantial risk of additional evidence, cost and loss of the trial date.

First-instance interlocutory judgment in the High Court. The judgment records earlier case-management and amendment decisions, including [2021] EWHC 647 and [2022] EWHC 126 (Ch), but no appeal from the present judgment.