KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)

As submitted by the defendant, it is Orange and not IT Way that is said to have undertaken “strategic investment” relevant to the performance of services to Shein (particulars of claim, para 16). There is no attempt to parse out the elements of a claim in misrepresentation by IT Way. No particularised conduct of IT Way is pleaded which is said to have given rise to the alleged contract by conduct (as distinct from the question of Bill’s ostensible authority arising through conduct). It is not explained what “infrastructure, personnel and operational resources” are said to have been supplied by IT Way, nor how Shein’s unjust enrichment in respect of IT Way has occurred. Finally, no explanation is offered to identify IT Way’s confidential information the defendant is said to have improperly disclosed to third parties.

I turn back to the overriding objective. I judge that it would be disproportionate and unjust for the defendant to be forced to grapple simultaneously with parallel proceedings in the ongoing arbitration and this court. This is especially so given the lack of clarity about the nature of IT Way’s claim as distinct from that of Orange. Given the lack of clear distinction between the claims of the two claimants, and now that Orange’s claim has been stayed, a genuine risk of unnecessary duplication and the disproportionate incurring of costs arises should IT Way’s claim proceed on its own. There is the further risk of inconsistent decisions and double recovery.

Therefore, I judge that IT Way’s claim must also be stayed behind the arbitral proceedings. In my judgment, the correct course in respect of IT Way is to grant an order pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(g) for a case-management stay on IT Way’s claims. I agree with the defendant that following the outcome of the jurisdictional challenge, should it be pursued by Orange, IT Way’s claims can be more effectively assessed. It can be with greater accuracy established which claims IT Way may be able to pursue in its own right and what loss, if any, it may have suffered independently of Orange.

An interim stay of IT Way’s claim is granted under CPR 3.1(2)(g) and the inherent jurisdiction.