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

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

Costs of jurisdiction applications to be paid by unsuccessful parties (Howden) on the standard basis, not indemnity; detailed assessment ordered. 12th defendant is entitled to costs from Aon, subject to issues-based reduction for strike-out application. Costs of effecting service out of jurisdiction are costs in the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: AON UK LIMITED; Claimant: AON BRASIL CORRETORA DE RESSEGUROS LIMITIDA; Claimant: AON plc; Defendant: HOWDEN GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED; Defendant: HOWDEN GROUP SERVICES LIMITED; Defendant: HOWDEN REINSURANCE BROKERS HOLDINGS LIMITED; Defendant: HOWDEN REINSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED; Defendant: TIGERRISK PARTNERS (UK) LIMITED; Defendant: HOWDEN RE CORRETORA DE RESSEGUROS LIMITIDA; Defendant: HOWDEN BRASIL CONSULTORIA E CORRETORA DE SEGUROS LIMITIDA; Defendant: ELLIOT RICHARDSON; Defendant: AHMED FAROOQ; Defendant: MASSIMO ANTONIO REINA; Defendant: LUKE FOORD-KELCEY; Defendant: ANTONIO JORGE DA MOTA RODRIGUES
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Judgment Following Jurisdiction Applications / Post Jurisdiction Applications, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders made: Howden to pay Aon's costs of jurisdiction applications (standard basis, detailed assessment); Aon to pay 12th defendant's costs (detailed assessment, issues-based reduction); costs of service out are costs in the case; January hearing costs split 50/50; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Detailed Assessment, Interim Payment
Civil Procedure Private International Law Costs Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Detailed Assessment Interim Payment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AON UK LIMITED

Claimant

AON BRASIL CORRETORA DE RESSEGUROS LIMITIDA

Claimant

AON plc

Claimant

HOWDEN GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED

Defendant

HOWDEN GROUP SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

HOWDEN REINSURANCE BROKERS HOLDINGS LIMITED

Defendant

HOWDEN REINSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED

Defendant

TIGERRISK PARTNERS (UK) LIMITED

Defendant

HOWDEN RE CORRETORA DE RESSEGUROS LIMITIDA

Defendant

HOWDEN BRASIL CONSULTORIA E CORRETORA DE SEGUROS LIMITIDA

Defendant

ELLIOT RICHARDSON

Defendant

AHMED FAROOQ

Defendant

MASSIMO ANTONIO REINA

Defendant

LUKE FOORD-KELCEY

Defendant

ANTONIO JORGE DA MOTA RODRIGUES

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Judgment Following Jurisdiction Applications / Post Jurisdiction Applications, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Basis for costs assessment (standard vs indemnity)
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs following jurisdiction applications
  3. 3 Costs of effecting service out of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Costs of jurisdiction applications to be paid by unsuccessful parties (Howden) on the standard basis, not indemnity; detailed assessment ordered. 12th defendant is entitled to costs from Aon, subject to issues-based reduction for strike-out application. Costs of effecting service out of jurisdiction are costs in the case, not payable immediately. January hearing costs split: Aon to pay 50% of Howden's costs. Interim payments ordered: £400,000 from Howden to Aon, £375,000 from Aon to 12th defendant.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made: Howden to pay Aon's costs of jurisdiction applications (standard basis, detailed assessment); Aon to pay 12th defendant's costs (detailed assessment, issues-based reduction); costs of service out are costs in the case; January hearing costs split 50/50; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • Howden to pay Aon's costs of jurisdiction applications, assessed on standard basis, subject to detailed assessment.
  • Aon to pay 12th defendant's costs, subject to detailed assessment, with issues-based reduction for strike-out application.