![Claim No: IL-2025-000064 - [2025] EWHC 2545 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
Claim No: IL-2025-000064 - [2025] EWHC 2545 (Ch)
Fecha: 06-Oct-2025
It is the claimants who bear the burden of proof in this case, which concerns the nature, and value, of technical descriptions of algorithmic trading strategies and actual code. They are required to p
It is the claimants who bear the burden of proof in this case, which concerns the nature, and value, of technical descriptions of algorithmic trading strategies and actual code. They are required to prove that the defendant reproduced highly sophisticated and ‘extremely valuable’ code, which the claimants spent years developing, and which is (they say) unique in the industry. The subject-matter of this dispute is highly technical. If anything, however, the fact that the burden of proof in this case rests on the claimants, and they are the party who are resisting the admission of expert evidence, would seem to me to tell against permitting expert evidence to be adduced at trial. If expert evidence is reasonably required to enable the claimants to establish their case, and such evidence is not forthcoming at trial, then the claim should fail.
To the extent that the court considers that expert evidence will not be necessary on any particular expert evidence issue, Ms Goodman submits, in the alternative, that expert evidence will be of assistance to the court, and reasonably required in the proceedings (for the reasons previously given).
Ms Goodman elaborated upon her original written submissions at the hearing. During the course of the hearing, I inquired of Ms Goodman (at page 90 of the transcript) whether there was a need for separate experts, or whether a single joint expert would be as effective, and more proportionate. Mr Craig KC noted my suggestion (at page 91) when he opened his submissions. As will appear, the defendant would be content with a single joint expert, although the claimants would not. I also inquired whether Ms Goodman’s oral indication that Mr Knight’s fees would come to some £50,000 included an element for VAT (given that the defendant is not registered for VAT purposes). Ms Goodman was unable to answer that question but said that she would make inquiries. So far as I can discern, no response has yet been communicated to the court.
Before addressing the five ‘expert evidence issues’ addressed in Mr Sheikh’s witness statement, the claimants point out that that the defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of CPR 35.4. These require a party who asserts that there should be expert evidence to: (i) provide an estimate of costs; and (ii) identify the issues which the expert evidence will be asked to address. The defendant has provided no estimate of costs. Nor has he identified the issues which the proposed expert evidence would address. Instead, he has set out a number of amorphous ‘topic headings’. Self-evidently, so the claimants say, that will prove to be a recipe for chaos, with the experts on each side addressing topics in a different way, and potentially answering different points. More importantly, it reflects the fact that the defendant is unable to articulate the actual issue(s) and question(s) which he says that expert evidence should address. Reference is made to Astex at paragraph 42. The claimants say that it is worthy of note that the defendant does not suggest that his proposed ‘expert’ considers that these are expert issues, nor that they have been formulated in a manner that the ‘expert’ could properly consider.
The claimants address each of the five topic headings identified at paragraph 21 of Mr Sheikh’s supporting witness statement in their written skeleton argument prepared for the hearing. Mr Craig KC expanded upon these points in his oral submissions. Taking each heading in turn:
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Case management issues
- Disclosure: legal principles
- The first three of these propositions may be distilled from McParland , the fourth from Lombard North Central , and the fifth from PRS v Qatar Airways Group
- Multiple, and overlapping, issues for disclosure should be avoided wherever possible
- Disclosure: Submissions, analysis and conclusions
- I have not yet decided whether this should form one of the issues for disclosure. But if it were to do so, then it would seem to me to eliminate all need for disclosure issue 4 since it makes it unnec
- To the claimants’ knowledge, the defendant could not have replicated Humber elsewhere. Accordingly, the claimants’ case with respect to any Springboard relief (insofar as it is based on the possibilit
- The defendant cannot see that this possibility has been considered by the claimants. The defendant is therefore concerned about the nature of any searches the claimants will have undertaken concerning
- Further, I consider that the claimants place too much emphasis upon the defendant’s own repeated assertions, in contemporaneous documents, that he could (and would) ‘replicate’ Humber (as reproduced a
- Expert evidence: legal principles
- The burden of establishing that expert evidence is both (i) admissible and (ii) reasonably required (in the sense that it is not just ‘potentially useful’ ) is on the party which seeks permission to a
- Barings is authority for propositions (1) and (2); Clifford for proposition (3); The RBS Rights Issue Litigation for proposition (4); British Airways for propositions (5) to (9); and Astex for proposi
- At p. 11, the tribunal described the respondents’ experts’ evidence as “ independent, impressively detailed and completely credible ,” and further that
- Ms Goodman submits that this arbitral decision demonstrates the utility of an expert in this type of assessment as lawyers are obviously ill-equipped to know, and the court will be ill-equipped to adj
- 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
- The decision tells the court nothing about whether or not expert evidence should be ordered in a case governed by the Civil Procedure Rules. That case involved an arbitration. Mr Craig KC rightly says
- Practical utility of confidential information The defendant proposes to rely on the expert evidence of Mr Colin Knight, a qualified trader with over 20 years’ experience in trading strategies. Ms Goodman points out that algorithmic trading was ac
- The claimants have themselves relied on the expert report of Mr Winrow to analyse the coding data extracted from the defendant’s electronic devices, as evidenced by A & O Shearman’s letter of 5 Septem
- It is the claimants who bear the burden of proof in this case, which concerns the nature, and value, of technical descriptions of algorithmic trading strategies and actual code. They are required to p
- Stage in trading strategy development – identifying which stage in the trading strategy development process each piece of ‘confidential information’ (as defined in the particulars of claim) pertained
- The assertion that there are a certain number of stages in the development of a trading strategy at G-Research is the defendant’s own construct , in the sense that it is not said to be a framework ref
- Public domain assessment – assessing whether the ‘confidential information’ was, as a matter of fact, generic and/or widespread industry knowledge within the field of quantitative investment, such tha
- The claimants emphasise that the defendant well knows that the information in issue in this case is not generic and/or widespread industry knowledge. That is precisely why he admits to saying (in an u
- Valuation of confidential information – determining the value of the ‘confidential information’ to a competitor, including with reference to various dates The claimants’ case is that the defendant well knows that Humber is highly valuable: see the co
- Retention of value – Assessing whether, and to what extent, the ‘confidential information’ is likely to retain its value over time, including over a one-year period of garden leave Quite apart from the disproportionate nature of the exercise (not lea
- Practical utility of confidential information – Assessing whether, and to what extent, other businesses (including Citadel Securities) could utilise the ‘confidential information’ in their business ac
- If material at all, this is a question of fact; but, in any event it is extremely difficult to understand how an expert would be able to opine on this matter: it suggests that there would be some reco
- Stage in trading strategy development The claimants submit that the assertion that there are a " number of stages in the development of a trading strategy " is a mere construct. The defendant contends that there is a logical difference be
- Public domain assessment
- The defendant submits that, at most, he referred to Humber at the highest degree of generality, and that the summary to which the court was referred was of minimal value. The parties are, accordingly
- Valuation of confidential information At paragraph 3 of their particulars of claim, the claimants plead that the claim " concerns the defendant's misuse and copying of the claimants' extremely valuable and sensitive confidential informati
- Retention of value Even if the defendant had the requisite knowledge and ability to ‘replicate’ Humber, establishing when Humber is likely to lose its value (through the process of alpha decay) will be the primary consi
- Practical utility of confidential information Conclusions