Back in 2015, the Claimant, Praxis, applied for the Defendant, Mr Burgess, to deliver up to Praxis' solicitors all documentation relating to Praxis. Mr Burgess made a witness statement confirming that he had complied with the order. However, Praxis instructed a forensic linguist (without asking for the court's permission) who concluded that Mr Burgess must have retained the Claimant's brochure and roadshow presentation, and had later made use of them because there were clear similarities in the content of websites of two companies operating within the same market as the Praxis. Praxis claimed that Mr Burgess had misled the Court in these proceedings, and that his position - that he has not, and did not, intend to use confidential information of Praxis - was not true. It was also said that Mr Burgess falsely stated that he had complied with the order, requiring him to deliver up all the Claimant's material, and that he was in breach of that order. Praxis applied for further relief in relation to documentation, and applied for its costs that were paid to the Defendant to be paid back.

The application was dismissed. The Claimant had sought, neither to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal from the 2015 decision, or to bring a separate claim in fraud seeking to have the original judgment set aside. In those circumstances, the present application was misconceived.