Braunford LLP v Pierre Allain

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30 am on Tuesday 7 October 2025 by uploading it to CE-File, by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by e-mail, and by release to the National Archives.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE Hodge KC:

Introduction

This is my considered judgment on the first full case management hearing in this case. On 24 and 25 July 2025 I heard a number of applications and delivered two extemporary judgments: [2025] EWHC 1934 (Ch) on the defendant's partly successful application for an extension of time for service of his defence and a successful application by the claimants for an expedited trial, and [2025] EWHC 1952 (Ch) on the defendant's unsuccessful application for an anonymity order. This has resulted in orders dated 25 July (and sealed on 29 and 30 July) for expedition and directions, for confidentiality, and for a confidentiality club. The directions order provided for an expedited trial, to be listed in a five day window from 16 February 2026, with an estimated length of 8–10 days. It also provided for a case management conference on 18 September 2025 with a time estimate of one day to determine: (a) any issues between the parties in respect of disclosure; (b) any application made by the defendant to rely on expert evidence; and (c) whether the proceedings should be subject to cost budgeting (and if so, to list a costs and case management hearing).

That case management conference duly took place before me on Thursday 18 September, between 10.30 am and 5.15 pm. Mr David Craig KC and Mr Charles Ciumei KC appeared for the claimants (with junior counsel) and addressed the court. Ms Kendya Goodman (of counsel) appeared for the defendant. The disparity between the litigation resources available to the opposing parties was starkly manifested by my view from the bench: there were no less than eight people on the claimants' side of the courtroom, with only two on the defendant's side. It was part of Ms Goodman's oral submissions that the financial asymmetry between the parties was matched by a similar informational asymmetry, which should be factored into the scope of the extended disclosure to be ordered by the court. Even though the court sat until 5.15 pm, not all live issues were able to be addressed in oral submissions. Nor was there any time remaining for me to deliver an extemporary judgment, or even to announce any decision on the outstanding issues. Given the order for an expedited trial, it is imperative that I should deliver this judgment as soon as possible. Given my busy judicial calendar, and the additional listing pressures resulting from the post-hearing announcement of the elevation of another of the Manchester Specialist Circuit Judges to the High Court Bench, this judgment is necessarily less fully reasoned than I would have wished. This should be borne in mind by the parties (and any appeal court). It should be read in conjunction with the parties' detailed written skeleton arguments, and the full transcript of the hearing, all of which have been available to me, and to which I have referred, when preparing this considered judgment.

Background

I can take the factual background largely from the agreed case summary. The defendant is a data scientist who had been employed by the first claimant since 30 June 2021. He resigned on 24 March 2025 and has been placed on 12 months' paid garden leave until 24 March 2026. The first claimant is an entity which researches and develops quantitative trading strategies. It is part of the G-Research group. Its intellectual property has been assigned to, and is owned by, the second claimant, which is an affiliated company of G-Research, incorporated under the laws of the Marshall Islands. On Friday 21 March 2025, the defendant accepted a job offer from one of G-Research's principal competitors, Citadel Securities LLC. He resigned from the first claimant on Monday 24 March 2025. In the period immediately following the defendant's resignation, it became clear to the claimants that the defendant had copied and misused information which the claimants contend contains confidential information and trade secrets. The defendant accepts that the text files and photographs which he copied contain a substantial amount of confidential information; but he contends that it was nonetheless not of trade secret quality, and that some of the information was in the public domain and so not confidential at all.

These proceedings commenced on 26 March 2025. The claimants contend that the defendant: (i) breached his contractual obligations under his employment contract; (ii) breached his equitable duties of confidence to the claimants, and/or regulation 3 of the Trade Secrets Regulations; (iii) misused the claimants' confidential information; (iv) breached the fiduciary duties he owed to the claimants in respect of confidential information; (v) infringed the copyright in the claimants' copyright works, contrary to Section 17 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988; and (vi) was (amongst other things) unjustly enriched at the first claimant's expense.

On 27 March 2025, the claimants obtained (without notice) an imaging order and injunctions (from HHJ Hacon). On the return date (3 April 2025), and by consent, Richards J granted the claimants an inspection order, and continued the injunctive relief. Execution of these orders revealed (among other things) that: (i) over a three day period between Saturday 22 and Monday 24 March 2025, the day that he resigned (and when he should have been at work), the defendant took 1,087 photographs which contain the claimants' confidential information (as displayed on his laptop screen which was logged in remotely to the first claimant's IT systems) using a personal iPad that had been given to him as a welcome gift by Citadel Securities just days before; and (ii) over a period of months, dating back to at least 17 July 2024, the defendant had created, and frequently amended, several text files in markdown format which contain the claimants' confidential information. Over 400 of the photographs relate to ‘Humber’, which the claimants allege is a highly valuable trading strategy, only recently developed by the first claimant following the expenditure of significant time and resources. In the text files, the defendant repeatedly recorded that he could (amongst other things) “replicate” Humber for a competitor. The meaning of this is contested between the parties.

The claimants seek to protect themselves against what they contend would be the irreparable harm they would suffer if the defendant were allowed to join a competitor equipped with their confidential information. They seek a final injunction, extending for two years beyond the defendant's contractual period of garden leave, as well as financial and other remedies.

The defendant denies liability and the claim to injunctive relief. In essence, whilst he admits taking the photographs and making the text files, he contends that the two activities took place completely separately. He contends that the text files were made to assist him with interview preparation, and no part of their contents has been disseminated. He alleges that the photographs were part of an aide memoire, and that he acted impulsively in taking them. The photographs were also never disseminated. The defendant generally denies that he has caused, or could cause, the claimants substantial harm. He denies that the claimants are entitled to...