Claim No: IL-2025-000064 - [2025] EWHC 2545 (Ch)
Chancery Division of the High Court

Claim No: IL-2025-000064 - [2025] EWHC 2545 (Ch)

Fecha: 06-Oct-2025

In Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd [2025] EWHC 475 (Comm) , Calver J (at paragraph 236) is said to have ordered expert evidence to assist in determining “ (i) whether the allegedly conf

In Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd [2025] EWHC 475 (Comm), Calver J (at paragraph 236) is said to have ordered expert evidence to assist in determining “(i) whether the allegedly confidential information was unique or copiable and (ii) what stage of development the TVC software had reached …”.

59.

I derive no assistance from any of these authorities. They decide no point of law or general principle, and lay down no rule of practice. Indeed, they decide nothing at all. In my judgment, Mr Craig KC rightly found it difficult to understand how any of these authorities could assist the court at all. Bridgewater was a decision of the New York Employment Arbitration Tribunal. Rules of evidence in arbitration are very different. Generally, a party is entitled to adduce any evidence it chooses to. Indeed, the applicable rules in the Bridgewater case - the national rules for the resolution of employment disputes of the American Arbitration Association – state:

The arbitrator shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered and conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.