KB-2025-001904 - [2025] EWHC 1602 (KB)

The Claimant (“C”) is a medical aesthetics business registered in England and Wales. The First Defendant (“D1”) is a solicitor, and an employee of C. D1 is on gardening leave which is due to expire on 19 November 2025. The Second Defendant (“D2”) is D1’s husband. D1 has brought proceedings against C in the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) which are ongoing.

These proceedings relate to information, belonging to C, that came into the possession of D1 and D2 (“Ds”). The evidence from Ds is as follows: on 1 May 2025, D2 received, in the post, an envelope containing documents belonging to C (in essence, printed versions of emails some but not all of which were between C and C’s solicitors - “the 1 May Materials”); the 1 May Materials were not accompanied by any note explaining who sent them and Ds do not know who the source was; D2 read the 1 May Materials; D2 began to convey the gist of the 1 May Materials to D1 but she stopped him; to this date, neither D1 nor her solicitors have read the 1 May Materials. It is not clear to me whether C accepts any or all of this evidence. However, C has presented no evidence to the contrary – e.g. no evidence that D1 or D2 might have obtained the 1 May Materials by any means other than the one they described.

Over the weekend of 17/18 May 2025, D1’s solicitors sent a copy of the 1 May Materials to the ET (after warning C’s solicitors that they planned to do this and being told not to).

The applications before me are concerned with what happened next. On 22 May 2025 C applied for and obtained an order from Goose J in relation to the 1 May Materials (“the Goose J Order”). C gave Ds no notice, not even informal notice, of this application. The Goose J Order, which was accompanied by a penal notice warning of possible contempt of court proceedings and imprisonment, required Ds to do various things in a short space of time, including delivering up all hard copies of what were termed ‘Relevant Documents’ (a term which included, but was broader than, the 1 May Materials). Goose J set a return date for 6 June 2025. Ds applied to this court to set aside the Goose J order. C applied to continue aspects of the interim relief in the Goose J order and set directions for a speedy trial.

The hearing did not go ahead on the original proposed return date (6 June 2025) for reasons that I addressed in a brief judgment, which is now annexed to this judgment. Instead, it was adjourned until 10 June 2025. On both occasions, C was represented before me by Mr Sethi KC and Ds by Mr Gorton KC and Mr Mitchell. I thanked them at the end (or what I thought was the end) of the hearing on 10 June 2025 for their submissions. I thank them again, both for the clarity of their submissions and for finding space in what I am sure are busy diaries for the adjourned hearing.