The Court of Appeal has set aside third-party notices against Citadel LLC and Daniel Needham in a dispute over allegations that confidential information from Susquehanna International Group Limited (SIG) was used to build a competing business in Dublin.
In a judgment delivered on 12 September 2022, the court allowed appeals by Citadel and Mr Needham against a High Court decision refusing to set aside the notices. It held that the defendants had not served them as soon as reasonably possible, as required to use the third-party procedure for a contribution claim under the Civil Liability Act 1961.
SIG alleges that consultancy firm Execuzen and its principals elicited confidential information from SIG employees and passed it to Citadel, which later established a Dublin business and recruited SIG staff. SIG also alleges that Execuzen coordinated a “group leave” of key employees. Those claims remain allegations; the appeals concerned the timing of the third-party notices, not whether the alleged conduct occurred.
The defendants delivered their defence in February 2017. The Court of Appeal found that they had considered whether to join other parties before then and decided against it. A report prepared by Grant Thornton, provided to the defendants in January 2019, estimated SIG’s losses at US$53 million, or about €47 million at the exchange rates then prevailing. The appeal court concluded that the report did not materially add to the defendants’ knowledge of the alleged roles of Citadel or Mr Needham and did not change the nature of SIG’s claim.
The defendants sought leave to issue the notices in September 2019. They were issued in March 2020, and the notices were served later that month on Mr Needham and in April on Citadel. The court said the delays, including an unexplained period after receipt of the report and a three-month adjournment of the motion, meant the notices were not served as soon as reasonably possible. It held that the third parties did not have to prove prejudice, and that the lack of delay to the main action or the possibility of a later contribution claim did not change that conclusion.
The court therefore set aside the third-party procedure against both appellants. It did not determine whether the defendants could pursue contribution through a separate action. The court proposed that Citadel and Mr Needham receive their appeal and High Court costs, subject to the defendants’ right to contest that proposal within ten days of electronic delivery of the judgment.