AON UK Limited & Ors v Howden Group Holdings Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 1084 (KB)

[2025] EWHC 1084 (KB)

Case No KB-2023-004487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

Venue Royal Courts of Justice,

Date 3 January 2025

Between

AON UK LIMITEDClaimant

AON BRASIL CORRETORA DE RESSEGUROS LIMITIDA (a company registered in Brazil)Claimant

AON plc (a company registered in Ireland)Claimant

Before Master Dagnall

-v-

Between

HOWDEN GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITEDDefendant

HOWDEN GROUP SERVICES LIMITEDDefendant

HOWDEN REINSURANCE BROKERS HOLDINGS LIMITEDDefendant

HOWDEN REINSURANCE BROKERS LIMITEDDefendant

TIGERRISK PARTNERS (UK) LIMITEDDefendant

HOWDEN RE CORRETORA DE RESSEGUROS LIMITIDA (a company registered in Brazil)Defendant

HOWDEN BRASIL CONSULTORIA E CORRETORA DE SEGUROS LIMITIDA (a company registered in Brazil)Defendant

ELLIOT RICHARDSONDefendant

AHMED FAROOQDefendant

MASSIMO ANTONIO REINADefendant

LUKE FOORD-KELCEYDefendant

ANTONIO JORGE DA MOTA RODRIGUESDefendant

Ed Brown KC (Instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) appeared for Claimants

Daniel Craig KC (Instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) appeared for First to Tenth Defendants

David Barnard (Instructed by Stewarts) appeared for Twelfth Defendant

APPROVED JUDGMENT

(judgment delivered orally remotely on 3 January 2025)

Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground 46 Chancery Lane WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400

Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

[1]MASTER DAGNALL: This is my judgment in relation to the question of whether I should at this point in time, that is to say now or in the very near future, deliver a reserved oral judgment relating to the first to fifth and eighth to ninth defendants ("the Howden UK defendants")' application for a forum non conveniens stay of these proceedings, the tenth defendant ("Mr Reina")'s application for a forum non conveniens stay, and the 12th defendant ("Mr Rodrigues")'s application for a forum non conveniens stay, and also, in the event that relevant stays are not granted, for reverse summary judgment and strike-out on governing law issues.

[2]That is the first question as to whether I should deliver what is presently a reserved judgment.

[3]The second and related question is to what directions, if any, I should grant at this point in relation to the sixth and seventh defendants, ("Howden Brazil")'s applications for a forum non conveniens stay.

[4]The general situation is as follows: the claimants, who are associated companies within the Aon Group, have brought these claims against their ex-employee Mr Rodrigues, and companies and individuals within the Howden group of companies, in circumstances where both Aon and Howden are well-known global insurance and reinsurance brokers, asserting that Howden effectively suborned Mr Rodrigues while he was an employee of the Aon Group to recruit other employees of Aon located within Brazil, and engineer a situation where Mr Rodrigues and those other employees all left Aon and joined Howden Brazil; Aon claiming that in doing so they effectively took Aon's Brazilian and associated insurance and reinsurance business to Howden. Aon assert that this involved numerous wrongs on the part of the various defendants.

[5]The defendants have not chosen so far to set out a substantive defence to the claims, except that they assert that the claims would all be governed by the law of Brazil rather than the law of England and Wales, but have brought applications technically under Civil Procedure Rules Part 11 asserting that this jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum in which the claims are to be determined, and therefore they should be stayed and effectively the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction.

[6]Aon originally served Howden UK and Mr Rodrigues within this jurisdiction. They then obtained orders from me in April of 2024 granting permission to serve on Reina and Howden Brazil out of the jurisdiction.

[7]A previous hearing took place in March 2024, at a point in time when it was being suggested to me that for reasons relating both to delays within the King's Bench Division Foreign Process Section, and in international service, it might take as long as 12 to 15 months for an order for permission to serve out to be carried into effect, so that there would be actual service.

[8]At that point in time, Howden were contending that the court should wait for all service to take place on all the defendants so that all the defendants could make such applications as they chose for the court to decline jurisdiction, but at that point in time I decided that it was appropriate for the matter to proceed as best it could, and I therefore listed the applications by the then-served defendants to come on in June 2024. The hearing time which was allocated at the parties' behest proved to be highly inadequate, and I adjourned the hearing to a further convenient set of dates in October 2024.

[9]In the meantime, Mr Reina was served and made his application for the court to decline jurisdiction; and so, in October 2024, I heard not merely from Aon and the Howden UK defendants and Mr Rodrigues, but also from Mr Reina who acts by the same solicitors and counsel as the Howden UK defendants.

[10]Having heard very extensive argument, I reserved judgment, intending to deliver it today, 3 January 2025, being just within the three-month period which is the usual rule for the court to deliver its reserved judgments unless there is good reason otherwise. I am fully conscious of that rule, and indeed that it is potentially misconduct on the part of the judge not to abide by it. But the rule itself is necessarily subject to the circumstances and the application of the overriding objective in Civil Procedure Rule 1.1:

"The overriding objective (1) These Rules are a procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. (2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable – (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in proceedings, and that parties and witnesses can give their best evidence; (b) saving expense; (c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate – (i) to the amount of money involved; (ii) to the importance of the case; (iii) to the complexity of the issues; and (iv) to the financial position of each party; (d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; (e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court's resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; (f) promoting or using alternative dispute resolution; and (g) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders."

[11]Aon in fact only effected service on Howden Brazil entities in October 2024. Mr Craig KC, appearing for Howden UK, in submissions which were adopted by Mr Barnard of counsel, appearing for Mr Rodrigues, took me to a timetable regarding this, contending that Aon had in fact itself delayed: firstly, in making the original application for permission to serve out: and, secondly, in waiting from my grant of permission to serve out on 12 April 2024 to some time in the late summer or early autumn of 2024 in sending the relevant material to the Foreign Process Section for service in Brazil, and which those counsel contended resulted in Howden Brazil only making its application in October 2024 rather than at an earlier date.

[12]Mr Brown KC, who has not been instructed previously in these proceedings, on behalf of Aon, stated that this apparent history was irrelevant, rather than disputing it as such; although I do note that Aon has previously pointed out that Howden Brazil, as is its right, but not, according to Aon, helpfully, had chosen to insist on service taking place on it in Brazil rather than on the solicitors who had previously been instructed to act for Howden UK, and have now also been instructed to act for Howden Brazil.

[13]In any event, as service only took place on Howden Brazil in October, they only had to acknowledge service and then apply under CPR Part 11 by the end of November 2024, which is what they have done. In doing so they have relied on witness evidence, which on a first reading does not add much, if anything, to what was deployed by Howden UK, but also an expert report from a Professor Satiro in relation to Brazilian law.

[14]I have already, at the other hearings, heard and considered substantial evidence of Brazilian law, although at first sight Professor Satiro's report deals with a further substantive matter of Brazilian law, which at first sight was not covered in detail by the other reports. That however appears to be the only real new material relied upon.

[15]That application having been issued, it came before me administratively in court box work, and raised a concern in my mind that it would impact on the judgment which I had reserved. I, therefore, on 4 December 2024, made an order requiring the parties to consider this and to state their various positions with reasons.

[16]That has resulted in a process where Aon, most recently in Mr Brown's oral submissions before me today, has contended that I should simply proceed to deliver my reserved judgment in relation to Howden UK, Mr Reina and Mr Rodrigues, and it can then thereafter be seen whether Howden Brasil really wishes to pursue its own application, and, if so, then appropriate directions can be given.

[17]Howden UK and Mr Rodrigues, through Mr Craig and Mr Barnard, it being unclear, although this can be clarified, as to whether Mr Reina is taking any position as to this at all, have contended that the appropriate course is for me to delay delivering the reserved judgment to hear the Howden Brazil application and then to deliver one combined judgment.

[18]It seems to me that this is essentially a question of case management, and one to be dealt with in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules' overriding objective. Although at one point in his submissions Mr Brown almost seemed to approach this on a jurisdictional basis, it seems to me that he accepted that the court was effectively considering a discretionary case management decision, and in my view he was right to accept that.

[19]The question as to when the court should deliver a judgment, and as to, even after it has conducted a substantial hearing and heard and apparently completed submissions, whether it should consider and deal with at that point a further application and indeed hear applications together is, it seems to me, essentially a matter of case management, and therefore to be conducted in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules, and in particular the overriding objective.

[20]However, when carrying out that operation, the court must nonetheless proceed on a principled basis.

[21]Mr Brown made a number of submissions as to why the court should simply proceed with handing down and delivering the reserved judgment.

[22]Although I have considered all of his and the other counsel's submissions, written and oral, and the various correspondence which has been produced to me, it seems to me to be appropriate to summarise the parties' contentions as follows.

[23]Mr Brown submitted; firstly, that the applications were logically distinct as such, and that the Howden Brazil application is simply separate and different from the other applications before me. He points out that it involves different parties. It also involves different evidence, and no-one has suggested to me that Howden UK or Mr Reina should be able to rely on the evidence which is sought to be adduced by Howden Brazil. Mr Barnard for Mr Rodrigues did not suggest that his side would seek to rely on it, although he did reserve his position should Aon produce anything material in response.

[24]Further, Mr Brown submitted that the relevant jurisdictional tests to be applied with regard to Howden Brazil would be different from those to be applied in relation to the other defendants, with the possible exception of Mr Reina. That is, I believe, although I do not decide this at this particular point, because Mr Brown would contend that, as far as Howden UK and Mr Rodrigues are concerned: a stay will only be granted if Brazil, or a relevant court in Brazil, is clearly the most appropriate forum for the determination of the disputes; while, in relation to Howden Brazil, the court will only allow the matter to proceed in this jurisdiction if the court is satisfied that this jurisdiction is clearly the most appropriate forum, that representing the difference in approaches set out in the Spiliada and subsequent cases between defendants who have been served within and without the jurisdiction.

[25]Mr Brown submits that, in all those circumstances, the Howden Brazil application is really wholly separate and distinct from the other defendants' applications, and should be addressed on its own terms, and should in no way prevent the court both coming to a conclusion and delivering its conclusion in relation to the matters which are the subject of the present reserved judgment.

[26]Secondly, Mr Brown submits, essentially for the same reasons, that simply delivering a reserved judgment now and then dealing with the Howden Brazil defendants' applications later would not give rise to any risk of inconsistency; effectively because the matters are logically distinct and also proceeding on different bases for the reasons which I have just given.

[27]Thirdly, Mr Brown submits that - although Aon itself, in its submissions in relation to the previous applications delivered by Ms Rogers KC, had stressed that Aon's desired forum solution of all matters being dealt with in this country in relation to the Howden UK defendants and Mr Rodrigues and Mr Reina would avoid a prospect of multiplicity of actions in different jurisdictions - for it to be suggested that the Howden Brazil defendants might have to be sued in Brazil, thus potentially resulting in a multiplicity of jurisdictions being involved if the Howden UK defendants and others were pursued in this jurisdiction, was at most a mere prospect, which was wholly unspecific, and with which the court should not be really concerned. Even if the court was to bear it in mind, the court would merely bear it in mind as a mere possibility, and would not be prevented from coming to a full decision on the matters which are the subject matter of the presently reserved judgment.

[28]Mr Brown submitted that the possibility in a multi-jurisdictional case of additional defendants or parties being sought to be brought in and making their own jurisdiction applications is a common feature of such cases; and should not prevent a court grappling with an existing issue and delivering a judgment; it is simply something which arises from time to time.

[29]Fourthly, Mr Brown submitted that the fact that, if the present reserved judgment was delivered now, the Howden Brazil application would remain outstanding would not give rise to any particular risk. He submitted that, even if the Howden Brasil defendants succeeded after a reserved judgment had held that Howden UK could be pursued in this jurisdiction, that would not be remotely likely to lead to some application being made by Howden UK to reverse and set aside the then-existing judgment in relation to them.

[30]While I think Mr Brown accepted that, in some circumstances, a subsequent application by and judgment in favour of a new party could amount to a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify the invocation of the court's jurisdiction to set aside or vary an existing judgment under Civil Procedure Rule 3.1(7); Mr Brown submitted not only that even the prospect of such an application was very unlikely, but also that it would be virtually bound to fail on the basis that the court would already have delivered a fully reasoned judgment in circumstances where the prospect of the Howden Brazil defendants making an application, and indeed it succeeding, was perfectly foreseeable; and that in such circumstances the court would be perfectly prepared simply to deal with the differing defendants separately, so that whatever happened in relation to the Howden UK defendants would simply stand, notwithstanding whatever different might happen with regards to the Howden Brazil defendants.

[31]Fifthly, Mr Brown reminded me of the statements in numerous of the authorities, including at Supreme Court level, in such cases as Vedanta v Lungowe, that jurisdictional disputes of this nature are to be dealt with on a summary basis and should be the subject matter of appropriate expedition; there being a strong policy that they should be resolved quickly at an early stage of the litigation so it could be decided whether the substantive claim should proceed here, or would have to proceed elsewhere.

[32]I do note the various references in cases of very high authority to such effect, although of course this has to be balanced against the general need to secure procedural as well as substantive justice and the overriding objective itself.

[33]Sixthly, Mr Brown reminded me of the general three-month window period which is all that should elapse between completion of submissions and reserved judgments.

[34]Seventhly, Mr Brown pointed out that the more time and resource that the court devotes to these jurisdictional questions, the more risk there is that the amount of time, cost and resource employed becomes disproportionate, this being in circumstances where there have already been about five days of full hearings and expenditure of costs which are said to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

[35]Eighthly, Mr Brown submitted that for me to effectively bring the Howden Brazil application into the existing process would result in it being lengthened out in circumstances where already in the region of 12 months have elapsed from when the Howden UK defendants first made their application under Civil Procedure Rule Part 11. He expressed a fear that to resolve the various applications together would result in a further delay of many months.

[36]In answer to questions as to whether such a delay would result in any event on the basis that, if the proceedings against the Howden UK and Mr Rodrigues and Mr Reina were to proceed, and that I delivered my reserved judgment to that effect, it would be necessary to have a further immediate delay in order to deal with Howden Brazil’s application, Mr Brown submitted as follows. First, that Aon were entitled to the existing reserved judgment, and that it should simply be delivered; but second, that the court would be then simply having to come to an independent decision as to whether to actually require the claim to be progressed against those particular defendants by way of service of defences and the like, even if simultaneously the court was also making directions with regards to Howden Brazil’s jurisdictional challenge. Mr Brown submitted that it would be entirely standard and common for the court to have the proceedings continue actively against one set of defendants even if another set of defendants were making a jurisdictional challenge.

[37]Ninthly, Mr Brown submitted that in essence nothing had changed from my previous case management decision in March 2024 to deal with the Howden UK, Reina and Rodrigues jurisdictional challenges without generally delaying to wait for the other defendants to be served. He submitted that there was always a prospect that service would take place against other defendants in the meantime, and therefore nothing unforeseeable had occurred. What should simply happen is that the existing process should proceed in the ordinary way; that is to say, to delivery of a reserved judgment within three months of conclusion of submissions.

[38]Finally, he submitted that, even if there was a relatively short delay, and certainly if there was a longer one, there would still be prejudice to Aon. Effectively he was submitting that justice delayed is necessarily justice denied, and that the ordinary three-month rule sets out as to what is generally expected from the judicial system, and that what the defendants were effectively seeking to do was to depart from that ordinary process, something which should only be done in exceptional circumstances, and which he contended do not exist here.

[39]Mr Craig, for the Howden UK defendants, submitted as follows.

[40]Firstly, that Aon had itself very much contributed to the existing situation by delaying in serving the Howden Brazil defendants.

[41]Secondly, that the question as to what would happen with regards to Howden Brazil was itself interrelated with what should happen with regards to the other defendants, Howden UK, Mr Reina and Mr Rodrigues. The court carries out in a forum non conveniens case an evaluative assessment of all the circumstances, including where a claim might most conveniently proceed against all defendants, as well as defendants individually. For the court to proceed, in circumstances where Howden Brazil had actually made an application, on the basis in relation to the Howden UK defendants that the outcome of that Howden Brazil application was wholly uncertain and could result in any of a number of possible outcomes was something which he submitted was generally inappropriate.

[42]Mr Craig submitted that, in circumstances where the court actually has a number of applications before it relating to jurisdiction, the obvious way for the court to proceed was to consider them all together and produce one combined judgment, looking at them holistically, rather than to artificially separate them out into some particular order. To take that latter course would carry with it the risks: inconsistent judgments; of one judgment as a matter of timing influencing another without the second being able to influence the first; and of the potential that a second judgment would amount to such a material change of circumstances such that the court could and should legitimately review a previous first judgment under CPR 3.1(7), resulting in a potential substantial waste of time, cost and resource.

[43]Mr Craig further submitted that, in the light of discussions of timing which I had had with Mr Brown, the court and the parties could accommodate a situation which would only result in a relatively short delay, but which would enable all the matters to be heard and dealt with together; and submitted that that was much the most appropriate course in the circumstances.

[44]Mr Barnard effectively echoed Mr Craig's submissions; particularly submitting that it would be artificial and inappropriate for the court to deal with the Howden UK, Reina and Rodrigues applications in the knowledge and on the basis that the Howden Brazil applications existed and could have any one of a number of outcomes and when there was the easy, and he would say appropriate, course of simply having a relatively short further hearing of the Howden Brazil applications which could result in one combined holistic judgment.

[45]As far as availability is concerned, I am very much constrained by my own judicial diary and commitments, and the parties have certain difficulties with availability of counsel. What it does seem to me are available as possible dates are the last week of February, where Aon's counsel are available; but where, as far as Mr Craig is concerned, his junior Mr Lloyd is not available. Mr Lloyd has previously made submissions on behalf of Mr Reina, in circumstances where Mr Reina's solicitors are also Mr Craig's solicitors. Mr Craig also has at least one day, the Thursday, committed to a hearing. Mr Craig would also wish to spend a significant amount of time earlier in the week at least preparing oral submissions in relation to an arbitration, but where the material before me indicates that the written submissions in relation to the arbitration would have been filed by the end of the previous week.

[46]Also, with regards to that week, Mr Holmes KC, Mr Barnard's leader, is of dubious availability at the beginning of the week, although it is suggested that he would have better, if not perfect, availability towards the end of the week. Mr Barnard himself would be available; but that is in circumstances where Mr Barnard, although able to deliver perfectly impressive submissions, as he has done before me today, is relatively junior.

[47]As far as the week of 3 March is concerned; all parties are available on 6 March, which is the Thursday. Mr Craig would be available earlier that week, Mr Holmes would not, and Mr Barnard does have other commitments at that point, albeit not of the nature of actual hearings.

[48]As far as the next week is concerned, there is availability on the Craig and Aon sides for 14 March, although not of Mr Holmes, and where Mr Barnard may be under an even greater difficulty than the previous week in relation to his own commitments.

[49]I have considered, as I have said, all the parties' various submissions in the light of the overriding objective. It seems to me, balancing all matters together, that this is an appropriate case to depart from the ordinary rule of the three-month delivery of judgment period and to deal with matters by way of a further hearing at the end of February or beginning of March.

[50]As far as availability is concerned, as I have said, I have numerous judicial commitments. The difficulty which exists in relation to them is that, while I regard certain of the commitments, which are to a judicial training course and associated preparation work, as being strict, there being a very strong judicial policy to the effect that judges should engage in appropriate training, I am unclear as to whether the relevant event, that is to say for the week of 3 March, is actually going to take place. While I have made inquiries as to that, I will only, it seems, learn of the answer at some point later in this month of January.

[51]As I said, I have considered all the parties' submissions, but it does seem to me to be appropriate to have a further hearing to hear material and submissions in relation to the Howden Brazil application with a view to delivering one combined judgment, probably on 14 March but possibly in the previous week. In coming to that conclusion, I have considered the overriding objective generally, but it seems to me that the most important matters are as follows.

[52]Firstly, the three-month rule, albeit a very strong one, is one which is necessarily subject to the individual circumstances of the case before the judge. It is only a rule of general judicial policy, although reflecting itself an underlying policy that judgments should be delivered within a relatively short period of completion of submissions. Nevertheless, it is made clear in the various statements of judicial policy that it can be departed from if there is good reason. It seems to me that it has to be subject to the overriding objective itself, which is a statutory requirement of the Civil Procedure Rules, themselves made under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and which govern the procedure of the courts.

[53]Secondly, it does seem to me that the Howden Brazil application is a genuine development and change of both a substantive and substantial nature.

[54]I have borne in mind that Howden Brazil chose not to be served in this jurisdiction; but nevertheless, it seems to me that the defendants cannot be blamed for the amount of time which was taken before Howden Brazil brought its particular application. Indeed, it is possible that some blame could be put upon Aon for delaying the service procedure. However, leaving that to one side, it still does not seem to me that the defendants can be blamed or that I should take some sort of view that they have sought to manipulate the situation so as to cause delay.

[55]As far as the application itself is concerned, although it does involve different parties and, at least at first sight, although I am not deciding this, a different jurisdictional approach, it seems to me that it is a real application of substance and one which potentially will affect the court's overall considerations as to what is the appropriate or most appropriate forum. It itself necessarily impacts on the question as to whether, if I permit all or part of the existing proceedings to continue in this jurisdiction, there would be further potential for multiplicity of proceedings. That is an aspect which was described as being of importance by all sides in their submissions at the previous hearings, and indeed each side sought to contend that the other side's proposed resolutions to the jurisdictional situation would involve undesirable multiplicity of proceedings. It does not seem to me to be at all desirable to proceed, as Mr Brown proposes, on the basis that the court should simply consider that there is a general air of uncertainty in circumstances where it actually has the application of Howden Brazil before it.

[56]Thirdly, it does not seem to me that this would open the floodgates to a possible series of further applications relating to jurisdiction and resulting delays. If Howden Brazil is included within the set of determined applications, that will cover all the existing defendants. Although Aon has threatened to seek to join a Mr Hamilton-Grant: firstly they have not done so as yet; and, secondly, as I understand it, Mr Hamilton-Grant is said to be resident within this jurisdiction and capable of being served within this jurisdiction, and it does not seem to me that any application he may make would be likely to add anything at all to that already made by Howden UK.

[57]It further seems to me that to effectively split off Howden Brasil would give rise to potential waste of time, cost and resource. It seems to me to be a perfectly real possibility that Howden Brazil would seek to pursue their application irrespective of what I decide in relation to Howden UK, Reina and Rodrigues. If, as Aon say, I decide that some or all of those proceedings should continue in this jurisdiction, Howden Brazil may well be able to say that they are in a different position, being located within Brazil.

[58]Further, if that application then proceeds, and where that in itself is likely to cause at least some delay to the progress of the proceedings against other defendants, it does not seem to me inconceivable if I decided in Howden Brazil’s favour that other defendants might seek to say that that decision would be a new and material change in circumstances which would undermine the previous decision and render it liable to an application to set aside or vary under CPR 3.1(7). The various matters in this case are distinctly connected. Indeed, Aon's primary case is that there was an actionable conspiracy carried on between all of Howden UK, Mr Reina, Mr Rodrigues, and Howden Brazil, and for the immediate benefit of Howden Brazil, although also for the indirect benefit of other Howden entities. In those circumstances, where matters are at least on one view interrelated, it does not seem to me that I should simply regard the prospect of the CPR 3.1(7) application as being so unlikely that I should put it to one side.

[59]Standing back and looking at this generally, it seems to me that this is a situation where matters are interrelated and should be subject to the usual principle that it is generally desirable for interrelated matters which are all before the court to be all resolved at one time together rather than in some sort of sequence with a prospect that that will then produce further applications and challenges resulting in waste of time, cost and resource.

[60]Notwithstanding that there is a strong policy in favour of the three-month rule, it does seem to me that there is good reason to depart from that rule in these circumstances. I am very much fortified in that conclusion by it seeming to me that it is perfectly possible to accommodate within the parties' and the court's diaries a hearing of the Howden Brazil application within relatively short order; enabling me to deliver a combined holistic judgment a relatively short period after that; and that this hearing has had the advantage of being able to set up such a process.

[61]It is common ground, it seems to me, that if I go down that route, any such hearing can only be in February or the beginning of March, in order to give Aon a chance to produce its evidence in answer to that of Howden Brazil and for Howden Brazil to have a relatively short time to produce any evidence in response.

[62]I appreciate that consequent listing of a hearing is going to cause some inconvenience to the court, and, potentially, some more substantial inconvenience to one or most of the parties. As far as those parties are concerned, it seems to me that the most important parties are Aon and Howden Brazil, although I do very much have to bear in mind the positions of the others who do have rights to be heard.

[63]It seems to me that a workable compromise can be achieved between the various competing interests. What I am going to do is I am going to list the matter provisionally for, first, 6 March, since that is a date which is apparently available to all. That listing, however, is dependent on the vacation of my existing judicial commitment, something which I will only know about later this month. So, what I will do as a secondary course is also provisionally list the matter for 28 February. I am listing it for that date on the basis that it is available to Aon. As far as Mr Craig's dates are concerned, although it will produce substantial pressure on him, the material before me indicates that that is a vacant day; and, although it will cause him difficulties in preparation, it seems to me that where he has, at first sight, at least some time available earlier in the week, and where what is to be advanced by Howden Brazil is at first sight relatively limited in ambit, that that will be practical. Mr Holmes appears to be available for that date, as does Mr Barnard. I will also provisionally list 14 March as a date for delivery of judgment.

[64]What I add for the parties' benefit is as follows.

[65]If Mr Craig in the near future comes to the conclusion that it would be more convenient for him for me to select a different day in the week commencing 24 February, I would be distinctly likely to accede to such a request. At the moment I cannot see that I would be booking up other cases for that particular time; but that is very much a matter for Mr Craig, who appears to be the person who is subject to greatest prejudice, and where, bearing in mind that he is acting for Howden Brazil, I would give him priority over Mr Holmes' convenience.

[66]If the parties came to the conclusion, assuming that my commitment for the week commencing 3 March was to be vacated, that they would prefer to have the hearing on an earlier date than 6 March, and so that judgment might be then delivered later on in that week; then again I would be potentially receptive to such a request.

[67]In all the circumstances, having balanced everything together, it seems to me that that course best achieves the overriding objective, results in only limited prejudice to the parties, and in circumstances where I as the court feel that I can accept some inconvenience in the interests of justice, it seems to me that that is the appropriate way to achieve the overriding objective, and I will so direct. Approved6.5.2025 Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk