AON UK Limited & Ors v Howden Group Holdings Limited & Ors

The timing of a reserved judgment is a case-management matter governed by the overriding objective. The usual three-month period for delivering reserved judgments is a strong judicial-policy rule, but it may be departed from where there is good reason. Where related jurisdiction applications are all before the court, it may be appropriate to hear them together and deliver one holistic judgment. Relevant considerations include the risk of inconsistent decisions, multiplicity of proceedings, further applications to vary an earlier order, and waste of time, cost and court resources. Expedition in jurisdiction disputes remains important, but it must be balanced against procedural and substantive justice.

Aon brought claims against companies and individuals associated with Howden, alleging that former Aon employees had been recruited and that business had been diverted from Brazil. Several defendants applied under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 11 for a forum non conveniens stay, with alternative applications concerning governing law.

The court had heard and reserved judgment on applications by the Howden UK defendants, Mr Reina and Mr Rodrigues. After that hearing, Howden Brazil was served and made its own jurisdiction application. The issue was whether the court should deliver the reserved judgment immediately or defer it, hear the Howden Brazil application, and give one combined judgment.

1. The application concerning the timing and structure of the reserved judgment was a discretionary case-management decision. It had to be determined on a principled basis by applying the overriding objective in rule 1.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

2. The three-month period for delivering reserved judgments was a strong rule of judicial policy, reflecting the need for prompt decisions, but it was subject to good reason and to the overriding objective. The policy favouring expedition in jurisdiction disputes, including that recognised in Vedanta v Lungowe, likewise had to be balanced against procedural and substantive justice.

3. The Howden Brazil application was a genuine and substantial development. Although it involved different parties and might involve a different jurisdictional approach, it could affect the overall forum assessment, including the risk of multiplicity of proceedings. The applications were also connected because Aon's case alleged an actionable conspiracy involving the defendants collectively.

4. Delivering separate judgments created a realistic risk of inconsistent conclusions, duplication, wasted resources and a later application under rule 3.1(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to vary or set aside an earlier decision following a material change in circumstances. Related matters already before the court should generally be resolved together where that course was practicable.

5. The court therefore directed a further hearing of the Howden Brazil application in late February or early March, with a view to delivering one combined judgment. The matter was provisionally listed for 28 February and 6 March, with judgment provisionally listed for 14 March.