Red Bull Technology Ltd v Fallows [2021] EWHC 3502 (QB) (17 December 2021)

Red Bull Technology Ltd v Fallows [2021] EWHC 3502 (QB) (17 December 2021)

The application for specific disclosure was refused because the requested documents were not shown to be sufficiently relevant or necessary for the fair disposal of the issues. The court found that the comparator evidence sought would be of marginal value at best, would not likely produce material probative of the central issues, and would risk disproportionate effort and distraction from the main case. The focus of the trial would remain on the defendant's own contract and circumstances.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3502
Parties
Claimant: Red Bull Technology Limited; Defendant: Dan Fallows
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (employment/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure and Amendment of Pleadings
Outcome
Defendant's application for specific disclosure refused.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Restraint of Trade, Minimum Term Employment Contracts, Disclosure of Documents, Comparative Employee Treatment
Employment Law Contract Law Constructive Dismissal Restraint of Trade Minimum Term Employment Contracts Disclosure of Documents Comparative Employee Treatment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Bull Technology Limited

Claimant

Dan Fallows

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (employment/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Specific Disclosure and Amendment of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific disclosure regarding comparator employees should be ordered
  2. 2 Whether comparator evidence is relevant to the enforceability of a minimum term employment contract and alleged constructive dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the minimum term in the defendant's contract is enforceable or in restraint of trade

Ratio Decidendi

The application for specific disclosure was refused because the requested documents were not shown to be sufficiently relevant or necessary for the fair disposal of the issues. The court found that the comparator evidence sought would be of marginal value at best, would not likely produce material probative of the central issues, and would risk disproportionate effort and distraction from the main case. The focus of the trial would remain on the defendant's own contract and circumstances.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for specific disclosure refused.

Orders

  • Application for specific disclosure by the defendant is dismissed.
  • Claimant's application to amend pleadings (deletion of paragraph 19.17(a) third sentence) is granted.