[2025] EWHC 2873 (KB)

In my judgment, if the Claimant wished to show the buying cycles of customers were relevant to the RCC, it could have taken figures from its digital records before September 2022. This, it did not do. It did rely on a 2017 survey, which was the date of the first contract offered to the Defendant, which had a 6-month RCC. This stayed so until 2022. The Claimant mainly relied on the Defendant’s own figures from 12 months or 2-3 years before his resignation. This, despite the Claimant’s counsel accepting that the pre-2022 records would have been the relevant ones.

The Claimant could also have instructed a forensic accountant to carry out a proper analysis of the figures and determine whether outliers should be included or excluded and other relevant assumptions. Instead of doing this Ms Colby and Mr Hitt (who got junior staff to do the work) produced analyses which were presented in various different ways and for which the basic sub strata kept changing. For one set of figures the base sample was put forwards as 300 customers and later changed to 250 customers. There were many other such examples.