Guy Carpenter and Company Limited & Ors. v Howden Group Holdings Limited & Ors.

In claims concerning alleged unlawful team moves and conspiracy, an expedited split trial may be appropriate where liability and injunctive relief are urgent but quantum is not yet capable of fair assessment. The court must balance the pragmatic factors relevant to split trials against the need to preserve effective springboard relief and to allocate court resources fairly between litigants. A springboard injunction is available only for the period of an unlawful advantage and may extend beyond misuse of confidential information to breaches of fidelity. Expedition should be confined to genuinely urgent issues.

The claimants, reinsurance brokers, alleged that the defendants had organised an unlawful recruitment exercise involving the coordinated departure of employees and the diversion of clients. They sought relief including declarations, injunctions, damages, an account of profits and exemplary damages.

At a case management hearing, the claimants sought an expedited trial in October 2023 on liability, declarations and injunctive relief, with quantum later. The defendants initially sought an expedited trial of all issues in January 2024, but later argued for a substantially delayed trial. The central issue was whether the claim should be split and expedited so that any springboard relief could remain effective.

1. Expedited split trial ordered. The court ordered an expedited six-week trial of all issues concerning liability, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, with quantum to be determined later. A one-day pre-trial review was directed for the week commencing 24 July 2023.
2. The decision whether to split a trial involves an essentially pragmatic balancing exercise. Relevant considerations include costs, trial preparation, witnesses, complexity, prejudice, the definition of the split, duplication, delay, appellate disadvantages, overall fairness and efficiency, and the effect on mediation and settlement. These factors applied, although the present application concerned liability and relief first, rather than discrete issues followed by a trial of the remaining liability issues.
3. The urgency of possible springboard relief was an additional and important consideration. Such relief is intended to prevent defendants from exploiting an unlawful head start and must be granted while the unlawful advantage remains operative. The possibility of relief therefore favoured an early trial on liability and injunctions.
4. Allocating an expedited hearing must take account of other litigants and the court’s limited resources. Under CPR 1(2)(d) and CPR 1(2)(e), expedition should be limited to genuinely urgent issues. Quantum was not urgent and would have been speculative and potentially unfair to assess before the relevant reinsurance contracting cycle had concluded.
5. The court rejected the argument that injunctive relief could not fairly be determined without quantum. The enforceability and duration of post-termination restraints, and the employees’ ability to approach clients, could usefully be determined earlier. The court also considered that a delayed trial might deprive the claimants of any practical opportunity to seek springboard relief.
6. In the expedited proceedings, pleadings must comply fully with CPR 16.5. Parties must identify admissions, denials and matters requiring proof, give reasons for denials, and state any alternative factual case. Requests for further information and, where necessary, unless orders should be made promptly. Full disclosure, including disclosure relevant to quantum, was required within the agreed timetable.