RED BULL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED v DAN FALLOWS

RED BULL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED v DAN FALLOWS

The application for specific disclosure was refused because the documents sought were not sufficiently relevant or necessary for the fair disposal of the issues. Comparator evidence would only be cogent if the circumstances of comparators were materially the same as the defendant, which was unlikely. The disclosure sought was disproportionate, would require significant work for little probative value, and risked distracting from the central issues.

Parties
Claimant: Red Bull Technology Limited; Defendant: Dan Fallows
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application for specific disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Restraint of Trade, Disclosure, Minimum Term Contracts
Employment Law Contract Law Constructive Dismissal Restraint of Trade Disclosure Minimum Term Contracts

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 / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific disclosure regarding comparator employees should be ordered
  2. 2 Relevance of comparator evidence to constructive dismissal and restraint of trade claims
  3. 3 Necessity and proportionality of disclosure sought

Ratio Decidendi

The application for specific disclosure was refused because the documents sought were not sufficiently relevant or necessary for the fair disposal of the issues. Comparator evidence would only be cogent if the circumstances of comparators were materially the same as the defendant, which was unlikely. The disclosure sought was disproportionate, would require significant work for little probative value, and risked distracting from the central issues.

Court Disposition

Application for specific disclosure refused

Orders

  • Defendant's application for specific disclosure is dismissed