![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
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
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 accepted as a recognised body of expertise in AlphaSharp. I note that at paragraph 38, Waksman J refers merely to the prospect of expert evidence of ‘industry practice’. However, that must be read in the context of the definition of the ‘trading strategy’ set out at paragraph 3 of the judgment, which was in these terms:
… the trading strategy, i.e. the set of systematic rules, formulae, algorithms, etc. that may change from time to time, that aims at exploiting risk premia and absolute and relative mispricing of assets in the financial markets globally
As a general submission, Ms Goodman says that the information copied by the defendant consists largely of algorithmic trading code. It is (self-evidently) necessary for an expert to assist the court (and the parties’ legal advisors) in understanding (1) the nature of algorithmic code; and (2) the value of any such code.
Broadly, Ms Goodman further submits that valuation evidence will be central to the defendant’s case as to: (i) his motivation in reproducing the GR Information; (ii) the nature of that GR Information (and whether or not it is a trade secret); and (iii) any financial relief to which the claimant may be entitled. Ms Goodman points out that Mr Sheikh’s witness statement refers to the relevant pleadings in annex A, cross-referenced against each of the expert evidence issues. She submits that, in respect of each issue, the claimant has made an averment as to which expert evidence will be necessary for its determination. The claimants’ resistance to expert evidence is said to be nonsensical, and inconsistent with their own case regarding the nature of their algorithmic trading strategies. Ms Goodman relies upon paragraph 24 of Mr Sheikh’s witness statement. This explains that:
- 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