The case of Specialist Risk Group Limited v Bedford [2025] provides timely guidance for employers managing the legal and practical challenges associated with team moves. We look at a recent procedural judgment in the case that offers important lessons on litigation strategy and case management.
In this case, Specialist Risk Group ("SRG"), a specialist insurance broker, brought claims against Mr Bedford, a former senior executive, and several colleagues who collectively resigned to join a competitor. SRG alleged that the group orchestrated a coordinated team move, in breach of their contractual obligations and fiduciary duties.
SRG was successful in obtaining interim undertakings that prevented the individuals from working for the competitor pending an expedited trial, where SRG was claiming final injunctive relief for various alleged breaches, including springboard relief and damages.
SRG made several procedural applications against the defendants, which we explore below, and these highlight the importance of thinking strategically from the outset of the litigation process.
Expert evidence
A key procedural feature of the case was SRG's application to rely on expert accounting evidence to quantify its losses. The court refused the application and concluded that SRG had not discharged its burden of proof in demonstrating that expert evidence was either necessary or that it would assist the court or be reasonably required at trial. The court found that the application had been made late, without a satisfactory explanation for its timing, and would likely delay proceedings if granted. The court also noted that the parties in this litigation were well accustomed to identifying the relevant losses in such cases. This decision is a reminder of the importance of early strategic planning and highlights the court's expectations of parties engaged in this type of litigation.
Split trials: liability and quantum
SRG also applied for a split trial (that is, for the issues of liability to be determined before, and separately, from the issues of quantum). The court refused the application and said that despite the fact that losses in employee competition cases are difficult to assess, there was "nothing inherently extraordinary about the trial, including its expedition" that would require a split trial in this case. The decision underscores the court's general preference to deal with all matters at one hearing unless a compelling justification is made for a split trial.
Specific disclosure
SRG applied for the disclosure of information in documents that the defendants intended to rely on, specifically related to employment offers they had received from other prospective employers and the redacted contents of their discussions. The court found that such disclosure was unnecessary for the fair disposal of proceedings. The court emphasised that the potential breach of confidence and the interests of third parties outweighed the asserted probative value of the information. When considering disclosure requests, it is crucial to balance the need for information against the potential breach of confidentiality, particularly when third parties are involved.
This case is a constructive reminder of the importance of strategic litigation planning and a tactful approach to procedure. Employers should keep this in mind when preparing to enforce their rights in the face of a team move.