Braunford LLP & Anor v Pierre Allain

Applications for an expedited trial should be assessed by considering four factors: whether there is good reason for expedition, its effect on the administration of justice, prejudice to the other party, and any special factors.

Urgency may arise where a decision is required before a future employment or commercial event, even though the event is several months away. The timetable need not be the most stringent possible and should be the least unjust to the interests concerned. A substantial risk of misuse of confidential information on entry into competing employment may justify expedition, even where existing interim relief remains in force.

The claimants alleged misuse of confidential information, intellectual property infringements, breaches of contract and related causes of action by a former employee on garden leave. They sought final injunctive relief, including an injunction preventing him from working for a competitor, together with other remedies.

The defendant opposed expedition and sought, among other relief, an extension of time for serving his defence. The court also considered continuation of interim injunctive and confidentiality protections. The central issue was whether the anticipated commencement of the defendant’s employment with a competitor justified bringing the trial forward.

1. Expedited trial. The application was granted. The court applied the four factors identified in WL Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox SpA [2008] EWCA Civ 622: good reason for expedition; interference with the proper administration of justice; prejudice to the other party; and any special factors.
2. Good reason was established. Following CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company [2009] EWHC 3204 (Ch), expedition may be justified where an answer is needed before a future date, even if the case is not immediately urgent. The timetable should reflect the point by which certainty is required and should be the least unjust to all interests concerned.
3. The court treated the case as analogous to restraint of trade litigation. As explained in Verition Advisors (UK Partners) LLP v Jump Trading International Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 701, reported at [2023] IRLR 787, such litigation commonly requires a speedy trial where the period of restriction may expire before trial. Here, the alleged imminent misuse of proprietary confidential information upon employment with a competitor created a need for an early determination, notwithstanding continuing interim protection.
4. Expedition would not materially interfere with the administration of justice or prejudice the defendant. A trial approximately six months after service of the defence allowed sufficient time for disclosure, expert evidence and other preparation. The disparity in the parties’ resources was relevant to proportionality and equality of arms, but did not make a fair expedited trial impossible.
5. The time for service of the defence was extended to 15 August 2025. Existing confidentiality protections were continued, subject to a proviso excluding the open parts of redacted documents from the prohibition on access or publication.