The High Court has refused applications to set aside third-party notices joining Citadel LLC and Daniel Needham to proceedings brought by Susquehanna International Group Limited. The applications challenged the notices on grounds of delay; the court did not decide the underlying claims or whether any party was liable.
The proceedings concern allegations about the departure of Susquehanna employees in 2016 and their subsequent recruitment by Citadel. The statement of claim alleges that a recruitment firm and three of its principals elicited confidential business information from employees and provided it to Citadel, and coordinated a group departure. Those allegations have not been determined. A separate action against Needham was later settled, while Susquehanna has not sued Citadel as a defendant in the main proceedings.
The defendants sought to join Citadel and Needham as third-parties, saying that a forensic accountant’s report disclosed for the first time that Susquehanna was claiming about €47 million in lost profits and linking the alleged loss to both proceedings. The report was completed in July 2018 but was not provided to the defendants until 18 January 2019. They issued their joinder motion in September 2019; the notices were served in March 2020.
Justice Garrett Simons found two periods of unreasonable delay: the defendants had not shown that they pursued the report during the six months after it was due, and they then took too long to seek and serve the notices after receiving it. However, assessing the case objectively and in light of its progress, he concluded that the delay had not unreasonably held up the main proceedings. He attributed the main delay to Susquehanna’s failure to provide particulars of loss until January 2019, about two and a half years after delivering its statement of claim.
The judge said setting aside the notices would risk multiple proceedings without a countervailing benefit: the third-party claims could be heard with the main action without unreasonably delaying it. He therefore refused the applications. He did not address the wider effect of Needham’s settlement under section 17 of the Civil Liability Act 1961; that issue had not been argued.
On costs, the judge gave a provisional view that the defendants should receive the costs of the motions from the third-parties, subject to adjudication if not agreed. He invited short written submissions on any different proposed order by 1 October 2021, with final orders listed for 6 October 2021. The proposed costs order would be stayed if appealed.