Case No. KB-2025-003035 - [2025] EWHC 2654 (KB)

I agree with Mr Northall. The Court is able to expedite the trial. Alternatively, I would at this stage assess the defendants’ prospects of success as comparatively low and the claimant’s prospects as comparatively high.

The defendants took “pot shots” at Ms Hasking’s evidence and invited me to conclude that she is an unreliable witness. However, the foundation of the claimant’s case is clear. Mr Marchant and Mrs Hampton have set up a business together and seek to build their client base by resorting to soliciting the claimant’s clients in the area, at the very least, of SW7. These are the likely building blocks which the trial judge is likely to consider.

On the basis of these building blocks, the defendants are free to continue to conduct business and compete with the claimant for clients even in SW7. The restrictions sought by the claimant simply prevent them from soliciting restricted clients as defined in the contracts under which Mr Marchant and Mrs Hampton were likely working. It is likely that the trial judge will conclude that Mr Marchant breached enforceable post-termination obligations and that Mrs Marchant conspired with him to achieve this.

I emphasise that the trial judge may take a different view on additional evidence. I do not seek to usurp the role of the trial judge. However, for present purposes, I do not accept the defendants’ submissions on the respective merits of each party’s case. Arguments on the prospects of success do not assist the defendants. I would at this stage judge that the claimant is more likely than not to succeed.